baseline survey on the attitude and level of knowledge of

The Government of the

Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department

Baseline Survey on the Attitude and

Level of Knowledge of the General Public

and Stakeholder Groups towards

Biodiversity in Hong Kong

Research Report

Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey

The Chinese University of Hong Kong

September 2018

Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department,

CUHK HKSAR

1

“Baseline Survey on the Attitude and Level of Knowledge of the General Public and Stakeholder Groups

Towards Biodiversity in Hong Kong” Research Report

Content

Executive Summary P.5

1. Introduction P.7

2. Research Design and Methods P.8

3. Research Findings P.20

3.1 Telephone Survey with the General Public P.20

3.1.1 Knowledge of Biodiversity P.20

3.1.1.1 Knowledge of the term “biodiversity” P.20

3.1.1.2 Knowledge of the biodiversity in Hong Kong P.22

3.1.1.3 Knowledge of designated protected area for nature

conservation in Hong Kong

P.23

3.1.1.4 Knowledge of the land area of country parks and special

areas in Hong Kong

P.25

3.1.1.5 Knowledge of legally protected local wild animals and

plants in Hong Kong

P.26

3.1.1.6 Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of

biodiversity in Hong Kong

P.28

3.1.2 Importance of Preserving Biodiversity P.29

3.1.2.1 Level of concern with the biodiversity in Hong Kong P.29

3.1.2.2 Perceptions of the importance of preserving biodiversity P.30

3.1.3 Closeness to Biodiversity P.35

3.1.4 Willingness to Preserve Biodiversity P.39

3.1.5 Overall Biodiversity Indexes P.43

3.1.5.1 “Knowledge Index” P.43

3.1.5.2 “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index” and “Willingness

Index”

P.45


CUHK HKSAR

2



3.2 Online Survey with Stakeholder Groups - Teachers and Planning and

Development Professionals

P.48

3.2.1 Knowledge of Biodiversity P.48

3.2.1.1 Knowledge of the term “biodiversity” P.48

3.2.1.2 Knowledge of the biodiversity in Hong Kong P.50

3.2.1.3 Knowledge of designated protected area for nature

conservation in Hong Kong

P.52

3.2.1.4 Knowledge of the land area of country parks and special

areas in Hong Kong

P.55

3.2.1.5 Knowledge of legally protected local wild animals and

plants in Hong Kong

P.57

3.2.1.6 Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of

biodiversity in Hong Kong

P.61

3.2.2 Importance of Preserving Biodiversity P.63

3.2.2.1 Level of concern about the biodiversity in Hong Kong P.63

3.2.2.2 Perceptions of the importance of preserving biodiversity P.65

3.2.3 Closeness to Biodiversity P.70

3.2.4 Willingness to Preserve Biodiversity P.75

3.2.5 Overall Biodiversity Indexes P.80

3.2.5.1 “Knowledge Index” P.80

3.2.5.2 “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index” and “Willingness

Index”

P.82

3.2.6 Teachers’ opinions and attitudes towards biodiversity in the sector P.84

3.2.6.1 Whether their schools have enough teachers who are

knowledgeable about biodiversity

P.84

3.2.6.2 Whether their schools value teaching students about

biodiversity conservation

P.85

3.2.6.3 Whether their schools organize any biodiversity-related P.86


CUHK HKSAR

3



activities

3.2.6.4 The effectiveness of the current curriculum and teaching

materials on biodiversity education

P.87

3.2.6.5 The government’s support to schools or teachers to teach

biodiversity

P.88

3.2.7 Planning and development professionals’ opinions and attitudes

towards biodiversity in the sector

P.89

3.2.7.1 Whether their professional sector is informed about

biodiversity

P.89

3.2.7.2 Whether their professional sector values biodiversity

conservation

P.90

3.2.7.3 The considerations for biodiversity conservation in

planning and decision-making processes

P.91

3.2.7.4 Whether incentives or pressures are adequate to urge their

professional sector to incorporate considerations for

biodiversity conservation in planning and decision

making processes

P.92

3.2.7.5 Views on the government’s job in promoting and

educating their professional sector on biodiversity

conservation

P.93

3.3 Focus Group Discussion (Summary) P.94

3.3.1 General Public P.94

3.3.2 Secondary School Teachers P.97

3.3.3 Planning and Development Professionals P.99

4. Discussion and Conclusion P.101

Appendix 1: Questionnaires and Discussion Guides P.110

Appendix 2: Demographics of Survey Respondents and Focus Group

Participants

P.137


CUHK HKSAR

4



Appendix 3: Statistical Tables P.147

Appendix 4: Full Focus Group Discussion Findings P.245


CUHK HKSAR

5



Executive Summary

The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) commissioned the

Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey (CCPOS) at The Chinese

University of Hong Kong to conduct a baseline survey to examine the attitude and

knowledge of the general public and stakeholder groups towards biodiversity in Hong

Kong. The study consisted of three research components: (1) a telephone survey with

general public aged between 15 and 64 (conducted in October 2017); (2) an online

survey with two stakeholder groups, namely primary and secondary school teachers,

and planning and development professionals (conducted from November 2017 to

January 2018); and (3) focus group discussions with members of the general public

and the two stakeholder groups (conducted from December 2017 to January 2018).

The study covered four major aspects: (1) knowledge of biodiversity; (2) importance

of preserving biodiversity; (3) closeness of biodiversity to the society; and (4)

willingness to preserve biodiversity. Based on these aspects, four indexes

(“Knowledge Index”, “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index”, and “Willingness

Index”) were constructed to quantify the knowledge and attitude level of the general

public and stakeholder groups towards biodiversity.

A total of 1016 members of public and 626 stakeholders (414 teachers; 212 planning

and development professionals) participated in the telephone and online survey

respectively. Response rate of the telephone survey was 38%.

Around a quarter of the respondents in the telephone survey (23.7%) has heard of the

term “biodiversity” and knew its meaning, and the percentage was significantly higher

for teachers (70.8%) and planning and development professionals (72.2%). Only 4.3%


CUHK HKSAR

6



of the respondents in the telephone survey said that they were quite well-informed or

very well-informed about biodiversity, while the percentage was higher for teachers

(26.3%) and planning and development professionals (20.3%). All three groups of

respondents demonstrated an overall positive orientation towards various aspects of

biodiversity conservation, as indicated by the values of the “Importance Index”,

“Closeness Index” and “Willingness Index” below (values range from 1 (Strongly

disagree/ Definitely will not) to 5 (Strongly agree/ Definitely will)).

General Public Teachers Planning and

Development

Professionals

“Importance Index” 3.84 4.04 4.17

“Closeness Index” 3.70 3.89 3.94

“Willingness Index” 3.28 3.64 3.72

Based on the results of the surveys and the focus group discussions, several key

findings were identified. First, the general public and stakeholder groups had a limited

understanding of biodiversity in general. Secondly, there was a lack of societal

concern about biodiversity in Hong Kong at large. As explained by focus group

participants, this is because Hong Kong citizens often prioritize convenience and

consumerism over biodiversity conservation. In addition, discrepancies between

respondents’ knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding biodiversity conservation

were observed. For example, as illustrated by the values of the three indexes, though

respondents might value the importance of conserving biodiversity and acknowledge

the closeness of biodiversity to the society, they attributed less importance to personal

efforts to conserve biodiversity. Lastly, collaborative efforts by the government,

business sector and citizens were considered essential to biodiversity conservation in

Hong Kong.


CUHK HKSAR

7



1 Introduction

In December 2016, the Environment Bureau of the Hong Kong Special

Administrative Region Government issued a landmark document, the Hong Kong

Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (2016-21) (hereafter BSAP), with an aim to

conserve biodiversity and support sustainable development. Against this background,

the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) commissioned the

Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey (CCPOS) at The Chinese

University of Hong Kong to carry out a baseline survey to examine the attitude and

knowledge of the general public and stakeholder groups towards biodiversity in Hong

Kong. The survey was among the first of its kind in the city.

The study has the following research objectives:

1. To develop a baseline picture on the attitude and level of knowledge of the

general public and various stakeholder groups towards biodiversity in Hong

Kong.

2. To establish an in-depth understanding on the perceptions, opinions, attitudes and

beliefs of the general public and various stakeholder groups towards biodiversity

in Hong Kong.

3. To develop a survey evaluation tool that can be used to track the progress in

achieving a key objective of BSAP on raising awareness and knowledge of the

general public and relevant stakeholders towards biodiversity in Hong Kong.

4. To provide information for the planning of public awareness and education

programmes in the future.


CUHK HKSAR

8



2 Research Design and Methods

This baseline study consisted of three research components. The first component was

a general public survey, which aimed to examine the knowledge and views of Hong

Kong citizens towards biodiversity. The second component was an online survey with

two stakeholder groups, namely teachers and planning and development professionals.

Similarly, the purpose of the online survey was to gather views of the concerned

stakeholder groups towards biodiversity in Hong Kong. The third component was

focus group discussions, which served to gain in-depth understandings of the

knowledge and views of Hong Kong citizens, teachers, planning and development

professionals towards biodiversity.

2.1 Telephone Survey with the General Public

2.1.1 Target Respondents

Target respondents were Hong Kong residents (Cantonese, Mandarin and English

speakers) aged between 15 and 64.

2.1.2 Sampling

To perform random sampling, all telephone numbers in the latest residential telephone

directories were transformed into six-digit numbers by erasing the last two digits. A

hundred two-digit numbers from 00 to 99 were then appended to each number, which

generated a sampling frame of household telephone numbers. Telephone numbers

were then randomly selected from the sampling frame during the survey. After

successful contact with the household, if there was more than one member eligible for

the interview, the “Next Birthday” rule was employed to select the eligible household

member whose birthday would come soonest.


CUHK HKSAR

9



2.1.3 Data Collection Method

The computer-assisted telephone interviewing (CATI) system was deployed to

conduct the telephone survey. All data were inputted into the system by the

interviewers.

2.1.4 Questionnaire

To prepare for questionnaire design, the BSAP has been studied intensively to

comprehend its background and objectives thoroughly. Besides, international and

local studies have also been reviewed to gain a more in-depth understanding of

similar public awareness surveys and the issue of biodiversity.1

In designing the questionnaire, it has been borne in the mind that this study should

accord with the needs and purposes of the BSAP. Therefore, while references from

international studies have been drawn, it has been made sure that the survey would

reveal the specific situations of Hong Kong.

The questionnaire contained 30 questions, which included 24 main questions and six

demographics items. The main questions covered four aspects – Knowledge of

biodiversity (“Knowledge” questions), Importance of preserving biodiversity

(“Importance” questions), Closeness of biodiversity to the society (“Closeness”

questions), and Willingness to preserve biodiversity (“Willingness” questions).

1 The following international and local studies were mainly reviewed for designing the study:

(1) European Commission (2015). Attitudes of Europeans towards biodiversity. Special Eurobarometer

436. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm;

(2) Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation, Building and Nuclear Safety (2016).

2015 Nature Awareness Study:Population survey on nature and biological diversity. Retrieved from

http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/naturbewusstseinsstudie_2015_e

n_bf.pdf;

(3) Martin, S., & Rollason, R. (2017). The First Baseline Study of General Public’s Awareness and

Attitudes Towards Biodiversity Conservation in Hong Kong. Retrieved from

http://civic-exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Biodiversity-report_v2-2015.C.008.15D.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/COMMFrontOffice/publicopinion/index.cfm

http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/naturbewusstseinsstudie_2015_en_bf.pdf

http://www.bmub.bund.de/fileadmin/Daten_BMU/Pools/Broschueren/naturbewusstseinsstudie_2015_en_bf.pdf

http://civic-exchange.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Biodiversity-report_v2-2015.C.008.15D.pdf


CUHK HKSAR

10



Before the survey was officially launched, a pilot survey was conducted to check the

feasibility of the questionnaire. According to the pilot results, the questionnaire was

then slightly modified (See the questionnaire in Appendix 1). Three sets of

questionnaire were prepared to cater to Cantonese, Mandarin and English speakers.

2.1.5 Polling Period

The survey was conducted during the period of 9-24 October 2017.

2.1.6 Sample Size and Response Rate

CCPOS has successfully interviewed 1,016 respondents. The response rate was 38%.

The calculation of the response rate is demonstrated as follows:

Total Number of Phone Calls Attempted 43335

A. Total Number of Confirmed Ineligible Phone Numbers for Interview

(Ineligibles) 24120

A1. Non-working number 19779

A2. Non-residence 1582

A3. Fax/ Modem/ Pager 2160

A4. No eligible living in 599

B. Total Number of Phone Numbers with Unconfirmed Eligible Interviewee

(Unknown) 17611

B1. No answer 8119

B2. Busy 2085

B3. Need password 58

B4. Language problem 17

B5. Without confirming as a household before hanging up 7332

C. Total Number of Phone Numbers with Confirmed Eligible Interviewees

(Eligibles) 1604

C1. Refusal (including refusal in the middle of interview ) 458

C2. Eligible interviewee unavailable in survey period 130

C3. Completed 1016

Response rate is computed in the following way:

Completed / [Eligibles + Unknown x Eligibles / (Eligibles + Ineligibles)]

= 1016 / [1604 + 17611 x 1604 / (1604 + 24120)]


CUHK HKSAR

11



= 0.3760 (i.e. 38%)

2.1.7 Sampling Error

The sample size was 1,016. At the confidence level of 95%, the sampling error was

±3.1%.

2.1.8 Quality Assurance

The interviewer team mainly consisted of university students who were capable of

conducting interviews in Cantonese, Mandarin and English. Before fieldwork, all

interviewers received a comprehensive briefing. Besides, the CATI system at CCPOS

allows fieldwork supervisors to perform real time monitoring of telephone interviews.

This means supervisors can listen to the conversations between interviewers and

interviewees. At the same time, they can monitor the computer screens of interviewers

as well.

After data collection, all survey data were recorded in SPSS with clear variable names

and labels. Before carrying out data analysis, data checking was performed to make

sure that the dataset contained no flaws.

2.1.9 Weighting

To ensure the representativeness of the data, the final sample was weighted by the

proportions of gender, age and educational level according to the latest population

profile published by the Census and Statistics Department.


CUHK HKSAR

12



2.2 Online Survey with Stakeholder Groups

2.2.1 Target Respondents

Target respondents of the online survey were members of two stakeholder groups,

namely teachers and planning and development professionals. The former group

included teachers in primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong. The latter group

consisted of architects, engineers, landscape architects, surveyors, urban designers,

urban planners, and other related professions.

2.2.2 Data Collection Method

For the “teachers” group, random sampling was used to select 300 primary schools

and 300 secondary schools in Hong Kong2. Teachers of various subjects in each

school were invited to participate in the online survey. A total of 122 schools (51

primary schools and 71 secondary schools) have participated in the survey. Besides,

the Hong Kong Professional Teachers’ Union, the largest teacher association in Hong

Kong, has also offered assistance in distributing the online questionnaire to its

individual members.

For the “planning and development professionals” group, cooperation of professional

bodies was primarily sought to disseminate the online survey questionnaire. Five

professional associations have helped to distribute the online questionnaire to their

members. They were The Hong Kong Institute of Architects, The Hong Kong Institute

of Landscape Architects, The Hong Kong Institute of Planners, The Hong Kong

Institute of Surveyors, and the Hong Kong Institute of Urban Design. Besides,

snowball sampling was also employed to further expand the base of respondents.

There is a potential limitation of the sampling method of the online survey. The way

2 International schools and special education schools were excluded in the sampling.


CUHK HKSAR

13



the respondents were recruited might exhibit a self-selection bias. That is, the people

who voluntarily decided to participate in the survey were possibly the ones more

interested in, and informed and concerned about the biodiversity issue. In other words,

these people might be over-represented in the sample.

2.2.3 Questionnaire

The telephone survey questionnaire served as the foundation of the online survey

questionnaire. On top of that, the online survey questionnaire also included some

specific questions for the two stakeholder groups (See the questionnaires in Appendix

1).

For the “teachers” group, respondents were asked about their views towards various

aspects of biodiversity education in their schools. Besides, they were asked to

evaluate the support provided by the government for them to teach biodiversity in

schools.

For the “planning and development professionals” group, respondents were asked

about their understanding of the concept of biodiversity and the importance placed on

biodiversity conservation in their professional fields. Besides, they were also asked to

indicate whether the government has done an adequate job to promote and educate

them on biodiversity.

2.2.4 Polling Period

The online survey with the two stakeholder groups was carried out from November

2017 to January 2018.


CUHK HKSAR

14



2.2.5 Sample Size

The online survey has successfully interviewed 414 teachers and 212 planning and

development professionals in Hong Kong.

2.2.6 Logistics

Every professional organization/ school had an individual online questionnaire link.

The respondents could easily access the questionnaire by simply clicking the link.

After they have finished the survey, all data of submitted questionnaires went directly

to CCPOS’s system.

The layout of the online questionnaire would affect the response rate. Questionnaires

with clearer layout will receive higher response rates. Therefore, efforts were put into

the layout design of the online questionnaires. Besides, the online survey platform

allows adjustment of questionnaire layout across different digital devices.

Respondents could clearly view the questionnaire on whatever device they use. This

technical feature could also enhance the response rate.


CUHK HKSAR

15



2.3 Focus Group Discussion

Five focus group discussions were conducted. Three of them were with members of

the general public, one with teachers, and the remaining one with planning and

development professionals.

2.3.1 Formation of Focus Groups

For the “general public” focus groups, target participants were drawn from the pool of

respondents in the telephone survey who have indicated their interest in participating

in the focus groups. Target participants were Cantonese-speaking Hong Kong

residents aged between 15 and 64 (see Appendix 2 for the demographics of the focus

group participants).

The three focus groups were formed based on the results of the telephone survey.

Target participants were categorized into “high”, “medium”, and “low” groups

according to their answers to the Importance questions in the telephone survey. The

“high” group consisted of participants who scored relatively higher in the

“Importance” questions, meaning that they were the ones who valued the importance

of biodiversity conservation more. The “low” group comprised of participants who

had relatively lower scores in the “Importance” questions, meaning that they valued

the importance of biodiversity conservation less. The “medium” group was

in-between. Besides, each focus group aimed to achieve a certain level of

demographic diversity by mixing participants of different genders, age groups and

educational levels.

Target participants for the two stakeholder focus groups were recruited from the pool

of respondents in the online survey who have expressed interest in joining the focus

groups (see Appendix 2 for the demographics of the focus group participants). For the


CUHK HKSAR

16



“teachers” focus group, only secondary school teachers of related subjects (i.e.,

Geography, Biology, Science, and Liberal Studies) were the target participants, since

these subjects are more relevant to biodiversity. This arrangement could foster a more

focused, thoughtful and substantive discussion among the participants.

For the “planning and development professionals” group, different fields of industry

practitioners (including architects, engineers, landscape architects, surveyors, and

urban planners) were recruited to join the focus group.

2.3.2 Discussion Guide

The focus groups with members of the general public served to elicit in-depth and

elaborate views of Hong Kong citizens towards the concept of biodiversity and the

biodiversity in Hong Kong. In this regard, the discussion items included how they

evaluated their knowledge of biodiversity, how they perceived the social and personal

importance in biodiversity conservation, how they viewed the relationship between

biodiversity conservation and social and economic development, and why and

whether they had the personal willingness to take actions to conserve biodiversity

(See the discussion guide in Appendix 1). A pilot focus group was conducted in

November 2017 to test and refine the discussion guide.

For the stakeholders’ focus groups, the core theme was the stakeholders’ views

towards the mainstreaming of biodiversity in their professional fields. Therefore, the

main discussion items focused on how stakeholders evaluated the importance of

biodiversity conservation in their professions and how they expected the government

would foster and help them implement biodiversity conservation measures in their

respective fields.


CUHK HKSAR

17



In the “teachers” group, the discussion covered the views of secondary school

teachers on various aspects of biodiversity education. More specifically, it included

how participants evaluated the adequacy and importance of biodiversity education in

their schools, how they perceived the difficulties in undertaking biodiversity

education in schools, and how they assessed the effectiveness of biodiversity

education. Finally, they were also asked to evaluate the level of support offered by the

government for them to teach biodiversity in schools.

In the “planning and development professionals” group, participants discussed how

they perceived the importance of biodiversity conservation in their professional fields,

why and whether their professional fields have implemented biodiversity conservation

measures, and how they evaluated the government’s efforts in promoting and

supporting biodiversity conservation in their fields.

2.3.3 Format

Each focus group session comprised of seven to nine participants. Each lasted for one

to one-and-a-half hours. All focus groups were conducted in Cantonese.

At the beginning of each focus group discussion, the moderators made a brief

presentation to introduce the background of the focus group and the whole study. This

briefing could help participants better understand the objectives of the study.

Throughout the discussion, participants were encouraged to freely express their

opinions towards the selected discussion issues about the biodiversity in Hong Kong.

2.3.4 Time and Venue of the Focus Groups

The three focus groups with members of the general public were conducted in

December 2017. The two focus groups with members of the two stakeholder groups


CUHK HKSAR

18



(namely teachers and planning and development professionals) were carried out in

January 2018. All focus groups were held at The Chinese University of Hong Kong.

2.3.5 Quality Assurance

CCPOS researchers served as the moderators of the focus group discussions.

Throughout the focus group discussions, participants were encouraged to freely

express their views and exchange ideas with other group members. All focus group

discussions were videotaped and audiotaped for later analysis.

2.3.6 Confidentiality of Personal Information

Focus group participants were fully informed about the need of audio and video

taping for research purposes. Participants were assured that the audio and video

recordings shall only be submitted to AFCD for its own research and archival

purposes. Besides, to ensure the anonymity of the participants, their personal

information shall not be disclosed in the research report (except for some general

demographic descriptions).


CUHK HKSAR

19



2.4 Data Analysis Approach

As stated, the overarching research objective of this baseline survey is to develop a

baseline picture on the attitude and level of knowledge of the general public and

various stakeholder groups towards biodiversity in Hong Kong. To this end, the

following analyses were conducted in this study:

2.4.1 Basic Analysis of Survey Data

For the treatment of survey data, percentage analysis of each question item was

conducted to delineate the overall pattern of answers given by survey respondents. In

addition, subpopulation analysis was also performed to identify the different patterns

of answers given by different demographic groups (i.e., in terms of gender, age,

education, occupation, living district, and household income).

2.4.2 Index Construction

A major research goal of this baseline survey is to construct indexes for the purpose

of longitudinal tracking of Hong Kong people’s knowledge and attitude towards

biodiversity. In accordance with the conceptualization of the questionnaire, four

indexes were created to benchmark Hong Kong people’s knowledge level of

biodiversity and their attitude towards biodiversity conservation. Hence, the

“Knowledge Index”, “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index”, and “Willingness Index”

were constructed. Besides, subpopulation analysis was also conducted to examine the

differences of index scores among different demographic groups.

2.4.3 Focus Group Analysis

The major arguments and opinions of the focus group participants were identified and

neatly summarized to provide in-depth views of the general public and stakeholder

groups towards biodiversity conservation in Hong Kong.


CUHK HKSAR

20



3 Research Findings

3.1 Telephone Survey with the General Public

3.1.1 Knowledge of Biodiversity

The first part of the survey was about Hong Kong citizens’ knowledge of biodiversity.

It contained two generic questions to gauge whether they have heard of the term

“biodiversity” and their overall subjective knowledge of biodiversity and three

specific questions to test their objective knowledge about the selected aspects of

biodiversity in Hong Kong.

3.1.1.1 Knowledge of the term “biodiversity”

First of all, respondents were asked about their knowledge of the term “biodiversity”.

More than half of respondents (53.0%) said they have never heard of the term

“biodiversity”, and 47.0% have heard of it. Among those who have heard of the term

“biodiversity”, 23.7% also knew what it meant, whereas 23.4% did not knew its

meaning.

Figure 1: Have you ever heard of the term “biodiversity”?

23.7% 23.4%

53.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Have heard of it, and know what

it meansHave heard of it, but don’t know

what it means

Have not heard of it


CUHK HKSAR

21



A higher proportion of the following groups has heard of the term “biodiversity” and

knew what it meant (See Appendix 3, Table 3.1):

Males (28.0%)

Aged 15-29 (44.8%)

With tertiary education (43.5%)

Students (49.6%)

With household monthly income of HK$60,000 or above (34.2%)


CUHK HKSAR

22



3.1.1.2 Knowledge of the biodiversity in Hong Kong

Besides, respondents were asked to evaluate their understanding of the biodiversity in

Hong Kong. Over half of them (53.7%) indicated that they were not quite

well-informed/ not at all informed about the biodiversity in Hong Kong. Only 4.3%

said that they were quite well-informed/ very well-informed about the issue. Some

40% (42.0%) answered “So-so”. Besides, 0.1% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to

answer”.

Figure 2: How informed do you feel about the biodiversity in Hong Kong? Not at all informed, Not

quite well-informed, So-so, Quite well-informed, or Very informed?

A higher proportion of the following groups indicated that they were quite

well-informed/ very well-informed about the biodiversity in Hong Kong (See

Appendix 3, Table 3.2):

Males (4.9%)

Aged 15-29 (6.5%)

Students (7.1%)

27.6% 26.0%

42.0%

3.4%0.9% 0.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not at all

informed

Not quite well-

informed

So-so Quite well-

informed

Very well-

informed

No

answer/Refuse to

answer


CUHK HKSAR

23



3.1.1.3 Knowledge of designated protected area for nature conservation in

Hong Kong

To examine the objective knowledge of the general public towards biodiversity, the

survey contained three knowledge-based questions. First, respondents were asked to

name a designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong. Some 60%

(63.1%) respondents could name the answer correctly. The most popular answer was

Mai Po (32.7%), which was followed by Hong Kong Wetland Park (18.6%), Hoi Ha

Wan (3.6%) and country parks (2.5%) (Table 1). However, 36.9% of respondents

were not able to provide correct answers.

Figure 3: Can you name one designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong. Please

tell me the one that you are most certain about.

A higher proportion of the following groups could name a designated protected area

for nature conservation in Hong Kong correctly (See Appendix 3, Table 3.3):

Aged 40-49 (69.9%)


Mangers and administers/ Professionals/ Associate professionals (76.2%)


63.1%

36.9%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Answered correctly Answered wrongly/Don't know


CUHK HKSAR

24



Table 1: Can you name one designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong. Please tell

me the one that you are most certain about.

Frequency Percentage

Mai Po 332 32.7

Hong Kong Wetland Park 189 18.6

Hoi Ha Wan 37 3.6

Various country parks 25 2.5

Sai Kung East Country Park 5 0.5

Kam Shan Country Park 4 0.4

Country park (cannot name a specific one) 3 0.3

Sai Kung West Country Park 3 0.3

Tai Mo Shan Country Park 3 0.3

High Island Reservoir (Sai Kung East Country Park) 2 0.2

Shek O Country Park 2 0.2

Clear Water Bay Country Park 1 0.1

Kiu Tsui Country Park 1 0.1

Shing Mun Country Park 1 0.1

Tai Lam Country Park 1 0.1

Aberdeen Country Park 0 0.03

Tai Tam Country Park 0 0.03

Geopark 10 1.0

Tung Ping Chau 9 0.9

Inner Deep Bay 7 0.7

Cape D’ Aguilar 6 0.6

Pak Nai 5 0.5

Sha Lo Tung 4 0.4

Sharp Island 3 0.3

Fung Yuen Valley 2 0.2

Ma Shi Chau 2 0.2

Marine park 2 0.2

Tai Po Kau Nature Reserve 2 0.2

Tsim Bei Tsui 2 0.2

Yan Chau Tong 2 0.2

Lung Kwu Tan Valley 1 0.1

Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau 1 0.1

Ung Kong Group 1 0.1

Wrong answers/Don’t know 375 36.9

Total 1016 100.0

Note: Due to the process of weight and rounding, frequency may be less than 1. Percentages do not always add up

to the total due to rounding.


CUHK HKSAR

25



3.1.1.4 Knowledge of the land area of country parks and special areas in Hong

Kong

The second knowledge-based question asked whether the respondents know the area

percentage of country parks and special areas in Hong Kong. An overwhelming

majority (84.6%) of respondents either got the wrong answers or could not provide

any answers. Only 15.4% got the answer correct that there is about 40% of Hong

Kong’s land being designated as country parks and special areas.

Figure 4: Do you know how much of Hong Kong’s land area is designated as country parks and special

areas? About 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, or Don’t know?

A higher proportion of the following groups got the answer correct that there is about

40% of Hong Kong’s land being designated as country parks and special areas (See


Aged 15-29 (20.7%)


Students (28.0%)

Residents in New Territories West (20.0%)


11.5% 13.4%15.4%

11.4%

48.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

About 20% About 30% About 40%

(Correct answer)

About 50% Don't know


CUHK HKSAR

26



3.1.1.5 Knowledge of legally protected local wild animals and plants in Hong

Kong

Thirdly, respondents were also asked to name a local wild animal or plant species that

is legally protected in Hong Kong. Respondents were virtually split on this question.

Half of the respondents (50.2%) has provided wrong answers or could not provide any

answers; the other half (49.8%) could answer correctly. The two most popular correct

answers were “Romer’s Tree Frog” (11.7%) and “Cetaceans (Dolphins, whales,

porpoises)” (11.7%). Other relatively popular answers include, for example, “All wild

birds” (6.4%), “Chinese Pangolin” (4.4%), and “Primates (Monkeys, etc.)” (3.4%)

(Table 2).

Figure 5: Can you name one local wild animal or plant that is legally protected in Hong Kong? Please


A higher proportion of the following groups could name a local wild animal or plant

that is legally protected in Hong Kong correctly (See Appendix 3, Table 3.5):

Males (55.4%)

Aged 15-29 (58.2%)


Mangers and administers/ Professionals/ Associate professionals (61.1%)


49.8% 50.2%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



CUHK HKSAR

27




Table 2: Can you name one local wild animal or plant that is legally protected in Hong Kong? Please



Animals

Romer’s Tree Frog 119 11.7

Cetaceans (Dolphins, whales, porpoises) 118 11.7

All wild birds 65 6.4

Chinese Pangolin 44 4.4

Primates (Monkeys etc.) 35 3.4

Masked Palm Civet 30 2.9

Reeves’ Muntjac/ Barking Deer 23 2.2

Burmese Python 10 1.0

Chelonians (Turtles, terrapins, tortoises etc.) 10 1.0

Hong Kong Newt 6 0.6

Chinese Porcupine 5 0.5

Bats 1 0.1

Plants

Agarwood 18 1.8

Orchids 16 1.6

Chinese New Year Flower 3 0.3

Hong Kong Dogwood 1 0.1

Pitcher-plants 1 0.1

Wrong answers / Don’t know 510 50.2

Total 1016 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

28



3.1.1.6 Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of biodiversity in Hong

Kong

An overall analysis of the three specific knowledge-testing questions found that, close

to 80% (78.9%) of respondents could answer at least one question correctly. More

than 35% (36.7%) of the respondents answered one question correctly, while another

35% (34.9%) got two questions correct; and 7.3% knew the correct answers to all

three questions. Only about 20% (21.1%) failed to provide any correct answers to the

three specific knowledge-based questions.

Figure 6: Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of biodiversity in Hong Kong

The following groups had a higher level of knowledge of the three specific aspects of

biodiversity in Hong Kong (answered 3 questions correctly) (See Appendix 3, Table

3.6):

Males (9.4%)

Aged 15-29 (12.5%)


Students (15.2%)



21.1%

36.7% 34.9%

7.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Could not answer any

question correctly

Answered 1 question

correctly

Answered 2 questions

correctly


correctly


CUHK HKSAR

29



3.1.2 Importance of Preserving Biodiversity

The second part of the survey consisted of seven questions to examine Hong Kong

citizens’ perceived importance of biodiversity preservation.

3.1.2.1 Level of concern with the biodiversity in Hong Kong

First of all, the survey asked whether respondents were concerned about the

biodiversity in Hong Kong. 33.7% of respondents were not quite concerned/ not at all

concerned with the biodiversity in Hong Kong. Only 14.8% expressed that they were

quite concerned/ very concerned. About half of the respondents (50.9%) answered

“So-so”. Another 0.6% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

Figure 7: How concerned are you about the biodiversity in Hong Kong? Not at all concerned, Not quite

concerned, So-so, Quite concerned or Very concerned?

A higher proportion of the following groups indicated that they were quite concerned/

very concerned with the biodiversity in Hong Kong (See Appendix 3, Table 3.7):



10.8%

22.8%

50.9%

11.4%

3.4%0.6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not at all

conrerned

Not quite

concerned

So-so Quite concerned Very concerned No

answer/Refuse

to answer


CUHK HKSAR

30



3.1.2.2 Perceptions of the importance of preserving biodiversity

Then, respondents were asked to evaluate six statements related to the importance of

biodiversity conservation.

When being asked whether economic development would be more important than

preserving biodiversity, nearly half of the respondents (49.7%) somewhat disagreed/

strongly disagreed with this notion. Only 14.8% prioritized economic development

over biodiversity conservation (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). Some 30%

(34.0%) answered “So-so”, and the remaining 1.6% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to

answer”.

With regard to the importance of public promotion and education on biodiversity, over

70% (71.6%) of respondents somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed that it was very

important; only 2.5% suggested that it was not very important (somewhat disagreed/

strongly disagreed). Some 20% (25.3%) claimed “So-so”, and 0.7% expressed “No

answer/ Refuse to answer”.

Similarly, about 70% (70.6%) of respondents also considered that biodiversity

conservation must be taken into account when undertaking infrastructure and land

development projects (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). Only 5.7% somewhat

disagreed/ strongly disagreed with it. More than 20% (22.5%) answered “So-so”.

Another 1.2% indicated “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

The following three questions examined how Hong Kong citizens attributed the

responsibility of preserving biodiversity to different parties in the society, namely the

government, the business sector, and citizens themselves.


CUHK HKSAR

31



The findings showed that a large portion of Hong Kong citizens thought that all three

parties should be responsible in one way or another: Close to 80% (79.3%) of

respondents thought that the government had a huge responsibility to preserve the

biodiversity in Hong Kong (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). Only 2.7% did not

think that the government had such responsibility (somewhat disagreed/ strongly

disagreed). 17.4% answered “So-so”. Another 0.6% indicated “No answer/ Refuse to

answer”.

About 70.6% somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed that the business sector had a

responsibility to preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong. Less than 4% (3.9%) did not

think so (somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed). Some 20% (25.2%) answered

“So-so”. The remaining 0.3% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

Finally, with regard to the responsibility of the citizens, close to 80% (78.8%) of

respondents claimed that citizens had a responsibility to change their daily habits so

as to preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed).

Only 2.9% did not think the citizens have such a responsibility (somewhat disagreed/

strongly disagreed). 17.7% considered “So-so”. Another 0.6% suggested “No answer/

Refuse to answer”.


CUHK HKSAR

32



Figure 8: Respondents’ perceptions of the importance of preserving biodiversity

Note: Percentages do not always add up to 100.0% due to rounding.

20.1

1.0 2.1 1.0 0.9 0.9

29.6

1.53.6

1.8 3.0 2.0

34.0

25.322.5

17.4

25.2

17.7

9.3

33.8 33.0

28.7

34.3

39.5

5.4

37.7 37.6

50.6

36.239.3

1.6 0.7 1.2 0.6 0.3 0.6

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Economic

development is

more important

than preserving

biodiversity.

(reversed scale)

It is very important

to promote and

educate the public

on biodiversity.

When undertaking

infrastructure and

land development

projects, we must

take into account

biodiversity

conservation.

Preserving the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong is a

huge responsibility

of the government.

The business sector

has a responsibility

to preserve the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong

Citizens have a

responsibility to

change their daily

habits so as to

preserve the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree So-so

Somewhat agree Strongly agree No answer/Refuse to answer


CUHK HKSAR

33



The following groups attached more importance to preserving the biodiversity in

Hong Kong (answered “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed”)3:

Importance Items Demographic groups

Economic development is

more important than

preserving biodiversity.

(Reversed scale)

(See Appendix 3, Table 3.8)

Aged 15-29 (66.8%)


Students (70.7%)

With household monthly income of

HK$40,000-$59,999 (59.9%)

It is very important to

promote and educate the

public on biodiversity.


Aged 15-29 (85.1%)


Students (89.0%)


HK$40,000-$59,999 (78.3%)

When undertaking

infrastructure and land

development projects, we

must take into account



Females (73.3%)

Aged 15-29 (85.2%)


Students (84.9%)


HK$60,000 or above (74.4%)

Preserving the biodiversity in

Hong Kong is a huge

responsibility of the

government.


Aged 15-29 (87.8%)


Residents in Kowloon West (85.5%)


HK$60,000 or above (84.2%)

The business sector has a

responsibility to preserve the



Females (74.5%)

3 Except for the first statement “Economic development is more important than preserving biodiversity.” It uses a

reversed scale and the percentages in the “demographic groups” column indicate the number of respondents who

answered “somewhat disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” to the question.


CUHK HKSAR

34




Hong Kong (answered “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed”) (Continued):


Citizens have a responsibility

to change their daily habits

so as to preserve the



Females (84.5%)

Aged 15-29 (84.3%)



HK$60,000 or above (86.7%)


CUHK HKSAR

35



3.1.3 Closeness to Biodiversity

The third part of the survey gauged Hong Kong citizens’ evaluation of the

relationship between biodiversity and the society. It contained six questions to

examine how they thought biodiversity (or lack thereof) would impact the society at

large.

An overwhelming majority of respondents (80.8%) opined that biodiversity must be

preserved for future generations (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). Only 2.4%

suggested the otherwise (somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed). 15.9% answered

“So-so”, and 0.9% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

Some 60% (64.9%) of respondents thought that preserving biodiversity could enrich

the leisure life of citizens (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). On the other hand,

4.6% considered the otherwise (somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed). 30.0% of

respondents answered “So-so”, and 0.5% indicated “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

Over half of the respondents (56.9%) somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed that the loss

of biodiversity would affect citizens’ living environment. On the other hand, 13.4%

somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed with this notion. Besides, 29.2% answered

“So-so”. Another 0.5% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

Close to half of the respondents (48.4%) suggested that the loss of biodiversity would

affect citizens’ health (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). 16.1% somewhat

disagreed/ strongly disagreed that people’s health would be affected by the loss of

biodiversity. Some 30% (34.7%) of respondents said “So-so”, and 0.9% indicated

“No answer/ Refuse to answer”.


CUHK HKSAR

36



Similarly, close to half of the respondents (47.8%) somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed

that the loss of biodiversity would lead to a decrease in food and product choices for

citizens. On the other hand, 18.0% somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed with this

notion. About one-third of respondents (32.8%) answered “So-so”, and 1.4% said “No


Finally, about 40% (40.8%) of respondents indicated that biodiversity conservation

could bring economic gains to Hong Kong (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed).

However, 12.3% did not think that biodiversity preservation could bring any

economic benefits (somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed). Besides, some 40%

(45.2%) of respondents answered “So-so” to the question. Another 1.6% indicated

“No answer/ Refuse to answer”.


CUHK HKSAR

37



Figure 9: Respondents’ perceptions of the closeness of biodiversity to the society


5.4 4.4 3.51.1 2.9 0.8

12.611.6

9.9

3.6

9.4

1.7

32.8 34.7

29.2

30.0

45.2

15.9

26.6 27.4

31.5

34.7

27.6

30.5

21.2 20.925.4

30.2

13.3

50.3

1.4 0.9 0.5 0.5 1.6 0.9

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The loss of

biodiversity will

lead to a decrease

in food and product

choices for citizens

The loss of

biodiversity will

affect citizens'

health

The loss of

biodiversity will

affect citizens'

living environment

Preserving

biodiversity can

enrich the leisure

life of citizens.

Preserving

biodiversity can

bring economic

gains to Hong

Kong

We must preserve

biodiversity for the

future generations

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree So-so

Somewhat agree Strongly agree No answer/Refuse to answer


CUHK HKSAR

38



The following groups perceived a significantly higher level of closeness of

biodiversity to the society (answered “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed”):

Closeness Items Demographic groups

The loss of biodiversity will

lead to a decrease in food and

product choices for citizens.


Females (50.3%)

With senior secondary education (Form 4-7)

(49.0%)

Mangers and administers/ Professionals/

Associate professionals (50.6%)

Residents of Hong Kong Island (53.3%)


affect citizens’ health.


Females (50.8%)

Aged 40-49 (53.2%)


affect citizens’ living

environment.


Females (62.6%)

Aged 40-49 (62.1%)


Preserving biodiversity can

enrich the leisure life of

citizens.


Aged 30-39 (66.6%)




Preserving biodiversity can

bring economic gains to

Hong Kong.


Aged 30-39 (47.1%)

With junior secondary education (Form 3) or

below (44.9%)



We must preserve

biodiversity for the future

generations.


Aged 15-29 (89.8%)


Students (89.8%)


HK$60,000 or above (85.3%)


CUHK HKSAR

39



3.1.4 Willingness to Preserve Biodiversity

Finally, the survey examined the willingness of Hong Kong citizens to preserve

biodiversity. Respondents were asked to indicate their willingness to engage in a

range of activities related to biodiversity conservation.

The results demonstrated that Hong Kong citizens were most willing to sign petitions

to support biodiversity conservation. Over half of the respondents expressed that they

probably would/ definitely would do so (56.2%), whereas only 14.0% were not

willing to sign petitions (probably would not/ definitely would not). Close to 30%

(29.4%) of respondents indicated “Half and half”. Another 0.4% expressed “No


Also more than 50% (54.4%) of respondents indicated their willingness to encourage

families and friends to preserve biodiversity (probably would/ definitely would). The

percentage of respondents who did not intend to take this action was 12.9% (probably

would not/ definitely would not). More than 30% (32.5%) answered “Half and half”.

The remaining 0.2% indicated “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

About 40% (40.1%) of respondents probably would/ definitely would boycott

products and services that would harm biodiversity, while about 20% (20.5%) said

they probably would not/ definitely would not do so. Besides, close to 40% (39.1%)

of respondents indicated “Half and half”, and the remaining 0.3% expressed “No


Similarly, about 40% (39.3%) of respondents probably would/ definitely would pay

attention to information related to biodiversity, but about 15% (14.6%) was not

willing to do so (probably would not/ definitely would not). And some 40% (45.5%)


CUHK HKSAR

40



answered “Half and half”. Another 0.7% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

Less than 30% (27.8%) of respondents probably would/ definitely would donate

money to associations dedicated to conserving biodiversity. On the other hand, close

to 20% (19.5%) of respondents were not willing to make such donation (probably

would not/ definitely would not). Besides, over half of the respondents (51.6%)

indicated “Half and half”, while 1.1% expressed “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.

The action that Hong Kong citizens were least willing to do was to participate in

environmental activities related to biodiversity conservation. Barely over 20% of

respondents probably would/ definitely would do so (21.3%). It is noteworthy that

unlike all other actions, the size of respondents not willing to take this action

(probably would not/ definitely would not: 30.0%) outweighed that of the willing

ones. Besides, close to half of respondents (48.3%) expressed “Half and half”.

Another 0.4% indicated “No answer/ Refuse to answer”.


CUHK HKSAR

41



Figure 10: Respondents’ willingness to preserve biodiversity


5.9 5.27.9

3.5 4.71.7

14.6 14.3

22.1

9.49.3

12.8

39.1

51.6

48.3

32.5 29.4

45.5

28.3

21.2

18.3

38.437.3

32.0

11.86.7

3.0

16.018.9

7.3

0.3 1.1 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Will you boycott

products and

services that would

harm biodiversity?

Will you donate

money to

associations

dedicated to

conserving

biodiversity?

Will you

participate in

environmental

activities related to

biodiversity

conservation?

Will you encourage

your families or

friends to preserve

biodiversity?

Will you sign

petitions to support

biodiversity

conservation?

Will you pay

attention to

information related

to biodiversity?

Definitely will not Probably will not Half and half

Probably will Definitely will No answer/Refuse to answer


CUHK HKSAR

42



The following groups had a significantly higher level of willingness to preserve

biodiversity (answered “probably will” or “definitely will”):

Willingness Items Demographic groups

Boycott products and services

that would harm biodiversity.






HK$60,000 or above (49.2%)

Donate money to associations

dedicated to conserving

biodiversity.






HK$60,000 or above (42.8%)

Participate in environmental

activities related to biodiversity

conservation.


Males (21.5%)

Aged 30-39 (29.2%)


Students (25.8%)

Encourage your families or

friends to preserve biodiversity.


Females (59.8%)

Sign petitions to support



Females (57.7%)

Aged 15-29 (64.4%)





HK$60,000 or above (67.6%)

Pay attention to information

related to biodiversity.


Males (41.6%)

Aged 40-49 (41.9%)





CUHK HKSAR

43



3.1.5 Overall Biodiversity Indexes

As stated, one of the major objectives of this baseline study was to develop a survey

evaluation tool for longitudinal tracking of the awareness and knowledge of the

general public towards biodiversity in Hong Kong. To this end, four biodiversity

indexes – the “Knowledge Index”, the “Importance Index”, the “Closeness Index” and

the “Willingness Index” – were constructed to benchmark Hong Kong citizens’

knowledge and attitude towards biodiversity.

3.1.5.1 “Knowledge Index”

For the “Knowledge Index”, two generic knowledge questions served as the indicator

of the general public’s subjective knowledge level of biodiversity. The index was

conceptualized in the following way: if the respondents have heard of the term

“biodiversity” and knew what it meant (Q1) and that they were quite well-informed/

very well-informed about the biodiversity in Hong Kong (Q2), they were regarded as

knowledgeable about biodiversity (as they were familiar with both the concept of

biodiversity and the biodiversity in Hong Kong). The percentage of these respondents

was counted as the “Knowledge index”. Hence, the index is represented by a

percentage number.

The analysis showed that the value of the “Knowledge Index” is 2.4. It means only

2.4% of respondents in the telephone survey have heard of the term “biodiversity” and

knew its meaning, and that they also perceived themselves as being well-informed

about the biodiversity in Hong Kong. The following groups of Hong Kong citizens

had higher scores in the “Knowledge Index” (See Appendix 3, Table 3.26):


Students (7.1%)


CUHK HKSAR

44



To further examine whether the respondents who were defined as knowledgeable

about biodiversity (i.e. the 2.4% of respondents) were really more well-informed

about the biodiversity in Hong Kong, their performance in the three specific

knowledge-based questions was compared with the performance of those who were

defined as less knowledgeable about biodiversity (i.e. the other 97.6% of respondents).

The results illustrated that the “knowledgeable” respondents had a better performance

than the “less knowledgeable” respondents: All of the “knowledgeable” respondents

could get at least one knowledge-based question correct, whereas 21.7% of the “less

knowledgeable” respondents could not provide correct answers to any of the three

knowledge-based questions. Besides, while about 30% (29.4%) of the

“knowledgeable” respondents could answer all three knowledge-based questions

correctly, only about 7% (6.8%) of the “less knowledgeable” respondents could be

able to do4. This affirmed that the respondents who were defined as knowledgeable

about biodiversity did possess more knowledge about certain aspects of the

biodiversity in Hong Kong. This finding provided credence to the validity of the

“Knowledge Index”.

Figure 11: Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of biodiversity in Hong Kong (Comparison)

4 Chi-square test showed that the differences were significant (p< .001).

0.0%

24.7%

45.9%

29.4%

21.7%

37.0%34.6%

6.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


question correctly

Anwered 1 question

correctly

Anwered 2 question

correctly

Anwered 3 question

correctly

"Knowledgeable" respondents "Less knowledgeable" respondents


CUHK HKSAR

45



3.1.5.2 “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index” and “Willingness Index”

With regard to the “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index” and “Willingness Index”,

they were constructed based on respondents’ answers to the “Importance”, “Closeness”

and “Willingness” questions in the telephone survey.

The “Importance Index” was constructed by coding and averaging respondents’

answers to seven “Importance” questions (Q6-Q12) on a five-point Likert scale (Q6:

1= Not at all concerned; 5= Very concerned; Q7-Q12: 1= Strongly disagree; 5=

Strongly agree). The scale of the index ranges from 1 to 5. The higher the score, the

higher the level of importance is placed on preserving biodiversity, as perceived by

the general public.

Similarly, the “Closeness Index” was constructed by coding and averaging the

respondents’ answers to the six “Closeness” questions (Q13-Q18) on a five-point

Likert scale (1= Strongly disagree; 5= Strongly agree). The higher the score, the

closer the public perceives biodiversity is to the society.

Finally, in order to form the “Willingness Index”, respondents’ answers to six

“Willingness” questions (Q19-Q24) on a five-point Likert scale (1= Definitely will

not; 5= Definitely will) were coded and averaged. The scale of the index ranges from

1 to 5. The higher the score, the stronger is the personal willingness to preserve

biodiversity, as expressed by the respondents.


CUHK HKSAR

46



Figure 12: The “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index”, and “Willingness Index”

Base: Importance index (980); Closeness index (979); Willingness index (992)

Note: Missing values were excluded from the analysis

The analysis found that the respective values of the “Importance Index”, “Closeness

Index” and “Willingness Index” were 3.84, 3.70, and 3.28 on a scale from 1 to 5.

These findings have two implications. First, overall speaking, the values of the three

indexes were all above “3.0” (which corresponds to the middle category “So-so” or

“Half and half” in the five-point Likert scale). This suggested that Hong Kong citizens

had an overall positive orientation towards various aspects of biodiversity

conservation: Generally, Hong Kong citizens valued the importance of preserving

biodiversity, acknowledged the closeness of biodiversity to the society, and were

willing to take certain actions to preserve biodiversity.

Secondly, a comparison of the three Indexes demonstrated that Hong Kong citizens

have placed different levels of emphasis on various aspects of biodiversity

conservation5. It was shown that Hong Kong citizens acknowledged the importance of

biodiversity conservation (3.84) more than the closeness of biodiversity to the society

(3.70). Compared to their relatively higher levels of recognitions of the importance of

biodiversity conservation and the closeness of biodiversity to the society, Hong Kong

5 The differences among mean scores of the three Indexes were examined using paired-samples t-tests. It was

found that the value of “Importance Index” was significantly higher than the values of both “Closeness Index”

(p< .001) and “Willingness Index” (p< .001), and the value of “Closeness Index” was significantly higher than the

value of “Willingness Index” (p< .001).

3.84 3.703.28

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Importance Index Closeness index Willingness index


CUHK HKSAR

47



citizens have attributed less importance to personal efforts in preserving biodiversity

(3.28).

To further examine the different orientations among Hong Kong citizens towards

biodiversity, a subgroup analysis of the three Indexes was conducted. The following

demographic groups had higher scores in the three Indexes:

Indexes Demographic groups

“Importance Index”


Aged 15-29 (3.95)

With tertiary education (3.97)


Associate professionals (3.94)


HK$40,000-$59,999 (3.93) and of HK$60,000

or above (3.93)

“Closeness Index”


Females (3.77)

Aged 30-39 (3.79)


“Willingness Index”


Aged 30-39 (3.34)



Associate professionals (3.39)


HK$60,000 or above (3.42)


CUHK HKSAR

48



3.2 Online Survey with Stakeholder Groups - Teachers and Planning

and Development Professionals

3.2.1 Knowledge of Biodiversity

3.2.1.1 Knowledge of the term “biodiversity”

About 70% of teachers (70.8%) and planning and development professionals (72.2%)

had heard of the term “biodiversity” and also knew what it meant. About a fifth of

teachers (21.3%) and planning and development professionals (21.7%) had heard of

the term but didn’t know what it means. And relatively few teachers (8.0%) and

planning and development professionals (6.1%) had not heard of the term.

Figure 13a: (Teachers) Have you ever heard of the term “biodiversity”?

Figure 13b: (Planning and development professionals) Have you ever heard of the term “biodiversity”?

70.8%

21.3%

8.0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



what it means


72.2%

21.7%

6.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



what it means



CUHK HKSAR

49



A higher proportion of the following groups has heard of the term “biodiversity” and

knew what it meant:

Teachers (See Appendix 3, Table 4.1)

Aged 20-34 (84.6%)

Secondary school teachers (77.4%)

Teachers of biodiversity-related subjects6 (87.7%)

With teaching experience of 10 years or less (82.1%)

Planning and development professionals (See Appendix 3, Table 5.1)

Aged 50 or above (80.0%)

Landscape architects/ urban planners/ urban designers (96.6%)

6 Biodiversity-related subjects include Liberal Studies/ General Studies, Geography, Biology, and Science.


CUHK HKSAR

50



3.2.1.2 Knowledge of the biodiversity in Hong Kong

Although many teachers and planning and development professionals knew the term

biodiversity, 27.3% of teachers and 39.2% of planning and development professionals

indicated that they were not quite well-informed/ not at all informed about the


26.3% of teachers indicated that they were quite well-informed/ very well-informed

and 46.4% thought that their knowledge of biodiversity in Hong Kong was “So-so”.

20.3% of planning and development professionals thought that they were quite

well-informed/ very well-informed about the biodiversity in Hong Kong and 40.6%

answered “So-so”.

Figure 14a: (Teachers) How informed do you feel about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?

Figure 14b: (Planning and development professionals) How informed do you feel about the

biodiversity in Hong Kong?

7.0%

20.3%

46.4%

23.2%

3.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not at all informed Not quite well-

informed

So-so Quite well-

informed

Very well-informed

10.4%

28.8%

40.6%

16.5%

3.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


informed

So-so Quite well-

informed

Very well-informed


CUHK HKSAR

51



A higher proportion of the following groups indicated that they were quite

well-informed/ very well-informed about the biodiversity in Hong Kong:


Males (34.6%)

Aged 20-34 (36.5%)


Teachers of biodiversity-related subjects (44.6%)






CUHK HKSAR

52



3.2.1.3 Knowledge of designated protected area for nature conservation in

Hong Kong

About 80% of teachers (80.9%) and planning and development professionals (80.7%)

could name a designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong

correctly. Most teachers answered Mai Po (58.2%), which was followed by Hoi Ha

Wan (6.8%) and Hong Kong Wetland Park (5.3%) (Table 3a). For planning and

development professionals, Mai Po was also the most popular answer (49.5%), which

was followed by country parks (8.0%), Hoi Ha Wan (4.7%) and Hong Kong Wetland

Park (4.2%) (Table 3b). About a fifth of teachers (19.1%) and planning and

development professionals (19.3%) could not provide any answers or offered wrong

answers.

Figure 15a: (Teachers) To your knowledge, please write down ONE designated protected area for

nature conservation in Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about.

Figure 15b: (Planning and development professionals) To your knowledge, please write down ONE

designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong, the one that you are most

certain about.

80.9%

19.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Answered correctly Answered wrongly/Don't know/Refuse to answer

80.7%

19.3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



CUHK HKSAR

53



A higher proportion of the following groups could name a designated protected area

for nature conservation in Hong Kong correctly:





Table 3a: (Teachers) To your knowledge, please write down ONE designated protected area for nature

conservation in Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about.


Mai Po 241 58.2

Hoi Ha Wan 28 6.8




Clear Water Bay Country Park 1 0.2

High Island Reservoir (Sai Kung East Country Park) 1 0.2

Tai Lam Country Park 1 0.2


Geopark 5 1.2




Marine park 4 1.0


Yan Chau Tong 2 0.5

Ma Shi Chau 1 0.2

Sha Chau and Lung Kwu Chau 1 0.2

Sha Lo Tung 1 0.2

Sharp Island 1 0.2

Ting Kok 1 0.2

Wrong answers/Don’t know/Refuse to answer 79 19.1

Total 414 100.0

Note: Percentages do not always add up to the total due to rounding.


CUHK HKSAR

54



Table 3b: (Planning and development professionals) To your knowledge, please write down ONE

designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong, the one that you are most

certain about.


Mai Po 105 49.5



Clear Water Bay 2 0.9

Long Ke (Sai Kung East Country Park) 2 0.9


Lion Rock Country Park 1 0.5

Ma On Shan Country Park 1 0.5

Pat Sin Leng Country Park 1 0.5

Pok Fu Lam Country Park 1 0.5

Hoi Ha Wan 10 4.7





Marine park 3 1.4


Geopark 2 0.9

Lai Chi Wo 2 0.9

Lung Kwu Tan Valley 1 0.5

Ma Shi Chau 1 0.5

Sha Lo Tung 1 0.5

Sham Wan 1 0.5

Wrong answers/ Don’t know 41 19.3

Total 212 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

55



3.2.1.4 Knowledge of the land area of country parks and special areas in Hong

Kong

65.5% of teachers either got the answer wrong or could not provide any answers.

34.5% answered correctly that there was about 40% of Hong Kong’s land being

designated as country parks and special areas.

59.0% of planning and development professionals either got the answer wrong or

could not provide any answers. 41.0% got the answer right.

Figure 16a: (Teachers) Do you know how much of Hong Kong’s land area is designated as country

parks and special areas?

Figure 16b: (Planning and development professionals) Do you know how much of Hong Kong’s land

area is designated as country parks and special areas?

6.0%

14.5%

34.5%

17.6%

27.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


(Correct answer)


2.4%

10.4%

41.0%

28.8%

17.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


(Correct answer)



CUHK HKSAR

56



A higher proportion of the following groups got the answer correct that there is about

40% of Hong Kong’s land being designated as country parks and special areas:






CUHK HKSAR

57



3.2.1.5 Knowledge of legally protected local wild animals and plants in Hong

Kong

66.9% of teachers could name one local wild animal or plant that is legally protected

in Hong Kong correctly. The most popular answers were “Cetaceans (Dolphins,

whales, porpoises)” (18.1%) and “Romer’s Tree Frog” (17.9%), which were followed

by “All wild birds” (6.0%) and “Chinese Pangolin” (4.6%). One-third (33.1%)

provided wrong answers or could not provide any answers (Table 4a).

62.3% of planning and development professionals could name one local wild animal

or plant that is legally protected in Hong Kong correctly. The most popular answer

was “Cetaceans (Dolphins, whales, porpoises)” (20.3%), which was followed by

“Romer’s Tree Frog” (10.8%), “Agarwood” (10.8%) and “All wild birds” (6.1%).

37.7% provided wrong answers or could not provide any answers (Table 4b).

Figure 17a: (Teachers) To your knowledge, please write down ONE local wild animal or plant that is

legally protected in Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about.

66.9%

33.1%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



CUHK HKSAR

58



Figure 17b: (Planning and development professionals) To your knowledge, please write down ONE

local wild animal or plant that is legally protected in Hong Kong, the one that you are most

certain about.

A higher proportion of the following groups could name a local wild animal or plant

that is legally protected in Hong Kong correctly:




Females (75.0%)


62.3%

37.7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



CUHK HKSAR

59



Table 4a: (Teachers) To your knowledge, please write down ONE local wild animal or plant that is

legally protected in Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about.


Animals






Bats 9 2.2

Chelonians (Turtles, terrapins, tortoises, etc.) 7 1.7


Primates (Monkeys etc.) 5 1.2


Hong Kong Cascade Frog 2 0.5

Leopard Cat 2 0.5

Squirrels 2 0.5

Birdwing Butterfly 1 0.2


Otter 1 0.2

Plants

Agarwood 13 3.1

Orchids 9 2.2


Camellias 3 0.7


Wrong answers / Don’t know 137 33.1

Total 414 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

60



Table 4b: (Planning and development professionals) To your knowledge, please write down ONE local

wild animal or plant that is legally protected in Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain

about.


Animals






Burmese Python 3 1.4



Chelonians (Turtles, terrapins, tortoises etc.) 1 0.5

Bats 1 0.5

Birdwing Butterfly 1 0.5


Plants

Agarwood 23 10.8

Orchids 3 1.4

Pavetta 2 0.9

Ailanthus 1 0.5

Camellias 1 0.5



Wrong answers/ Don’t know 80 37.7

Total 212 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

61



3.2.1.6 Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of biodiversity in Hong

Kong

Regarding the above three specific knowledge-based questions, a majority of teachers

(88.4%) and planning and development professionals (90.6%) could answer at least

one question correctly. Around 40% of teachers (41.8%) and planning and

development professionals (38.2%) could answer two questions correctly. Over a

quarter of teachers (26.1%) and planning and development professionals (27.8%)

were able to answer all three questions correctly. 20.5% of teachers and 24.5% of

planning and development professionals were able to answer one question correctly.

Only 11.6% of teachers and 9.4% of planning and development professionals could

not answer any questions correctly.

Figure 18a: (Teachers) Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of biodiversity in Hong Kong

11.6%

20.5%

41.8%

26.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


question correctly

Answered 1 question

correctly


correctly


correctly


CUHK HKSAR

62



Figure 18b: (Planning and development professional) Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects

of biodiversity in Hong Kong

The following groups had higher level of knowledge of the three specific aspects of

biodiversity in Hong Kong (answered 3 questions correctly):


Males (29.6%)




9.4%

24.5%

38.2%

27.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


question correctly

Answered 1 question

correctly


correctly


correctly


CUHK HKSAR

63



3.2.2 Importance of Preserving Biodiversity

3.2.2.1 Level of concern about the biodiversity in Hong Kong

37.2% of teachers expressed that they were quite concerned/ very concerned about the

biodiversity in Hong Kong. 12.3% were not quite concerned/ not at all concerned and

half of them (50.5%) answered “So-so”.

More than half (56.6%) of the planning and development professionals expressed that

they were quite concerned/ very concerned about the biodiversity in Hong Kong.

11.8% were not quite concerned/ not at all concerned and 31.6% answered “So-so”.

Figure 19a: (Teachers) How concerned are you about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?

Figure 19b: (Planning and development professionals) How concerned are you about the biodiversity in

Hong Kong?

1.7%

10.6%

50.5%

32.1%

5.1%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not at all conrerned Not quite

concerned

So-so Quite concerned Very concerned

2.4%

9.4%

31.6%36.3%

20.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not at all conrerned Not quite

concerned

So-so Quite concerned Very concerned


CUHK HKSAR

64



A higher proportion of the following groups indicated that they were quite concerned/

very concerned about the biodiversity in Hong Kong:







CUHK HKSAR

65



3.2.2.2 Perceptions of the importance of preserving biodiversity

An overwhelming majority of teachers and planning and development professionals

had a positive attitude towards the importance of biodiversity preservation.

Approximately 90% of teachers and planning and development professionals

somewhat agreed/ strongly agree most of the sentences:

89.6% of teachers and 91.0% of planning and development professionals somewhat

agreed/ strongly agreed that it was important to promote and educate the public on

biodiversity. 3.1% of teachers and 1.9% of planning and development professionals

somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed with it. About 7% of teachers (7.2%) and

planning and development professionals (7.1%) answered “So-so”.

89.6% of teachers and 87.3% of planning and development professionals considered

that biodiversity conservation must be taken into account when undertaking

infrastructure and land development projects (somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed).


disagreed/ strongly disagreed with it. 7.5% of teachers and 8.5% of planning and

development professionals answered “So-so”.

92.3% of teachers and 88.7% of planning and development professionals thought that

the government had a huge responsibility to preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong

(somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). 2.7% of teachers and 5.7% of planning and

development professionals somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed with it. About 5%

of teachers (5.1%) and planning and development professionals (5.7%) answered

“So-so”.


CUHK HKSAR

66




agreed/ strongly agreed that the business sector had a responsibility to preserve the

biodiversity in Hong Kong. 3.9% of teachers and 5.2% of planning and development

professionals somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed with it. 7.5% of teachers and

8.0% of planning and development professionals answered “So-so”.


agreed/ strongly agreed that citizens had a responsibility to change their daily habits

so as to preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong. 3.6% of teachers and 2.8% of

planning and development professionals somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed with

it. 6.0% of teachers and 4.7% of planning and development professionals answered

“So-so”.

By measuring their attitudes in a reversed way, 65.7% of teachers and 68.9% of

planning and development professionals somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed that

economic development was more important than preserving biodiversity. 12.8% of

teachers and 13.7% of planning and development professionals somewhat agreed/

strongly agreed with this sentence. 21.5% of teachers and 17.5% of planning and

development professionals answered “So-so”. Their opinions on this statement were

relatively diverse than the other statements.


CUHK HKSAR

67



Figure 20a: Teachers’ perceptions of the importance of preserving biodiversity


14.3

1.4 1.7 1.7 1.2 1.2

51.4

1.7 1.2 1.0 2.7 2.4

21.5

7.2 7.55.1

7.5 6.0

11.4

49.3 51.0

38.4

54.3

51.2

1.4

40.3 38.6

53.9

34.339.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Economic

development is

more important

than preserving

biodiversity.

(reversed scale)


to promote and

educate the public

on biodiversity.

When undertaking

infrastructure and

land development

projects, we must

take into account

biodiversity

conservation.

Preserving the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong is a

huge responsibility

of the government.

The business sector


to preserve the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong

Citizens have a

responsibility to

change their daily

habits so as to

preserve the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong.

Strongly disagree Somewhat disagree So-so Somewhat agree Strongly agree


CUHK HKSAR

68



Figure 20b: Planning and development professionals’ perceptions of the importance of preserving

biodiversity


33.0

1.9 2.4 1.9 1.4 1.9

35.8

1.9 3.8 3.8 0.9

17.5

7.1

8.5 5.7 8.0

4.7

12.7

34.0

41.5

31.1

43.4

42.9

0.9

57.1

45.8

57.5

43.4

49.5

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Economic

development is

more important

than preserving

biodiversity.

(reversed scale)


to promote and

educate the public

on biodiversity.

When undertaking

infrastructure and

land development

projects, we must

take into account

biodiversity

conservation.

Preserving the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong is a

huge responsibility

of the government.

The business sector


to preserve the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong

Citizens have a

responsibility to

change their daily

habits so as to

preserve the

biodiversity in

Hong Kong.



CUHK HKSAR

69




Hong Kong (answered “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed”)7:


(Teachers)

Demographic

groups (Planning

and development

professionals)

Economic development is more important

than preserving biodiversity.

(Reversed scale)

(See Appendix 3, Table 4.8 & 5.8)

Females (68.9%) NA

It is very important to promote and educate

the public on biodiversity.


Teachers of

biodiversity-related

subjects (93.6%)

NA

When undertaking infrastructure and land

development projects, we must take into

account biodiversity conservation.


NA NA

Preserving the biodiversity in Hong Kong

is a huge responsibility of the government.


Teachers in

government schools

(96.4%)

NA

The business sector has a responsibility to

preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong.


Females (91.6%) NA

Citizens have a responsibility to change

their daily habits so as to preserve the



Teachers in aided/

caput schools (91.5%)

Teachers of


subjects (94.6%)

NA

7 Except for the first statement “Economic development is more important than preserving biodiversity.” It uses a

reversed scale reversed scale and the percentages in the “demographic groups” column indicate the number of

respondents who answered “somewhat disagreed” or “strongly disagreed” to the question.


CUHK HKSAR

70



3.2.3 Closeness to Biodiversity

For teachers and planning and development professionals, it seemed to be

indisputable that biodiversity must be preserved for future generations. An

overwhelming majority of teachers (92.0%) and planning and development

professionals (90.6%) somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed with this notion. Among

them, 53.4% of teachers and 68.4% of planning and development professionals

strongly agreed with the statement. Merely 1.0% of teachers and 1.9% of planning

and development professionals somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed with it. About

7% of teachers (7.0%) and planning and development professionals (7.5%) answered

“So-so”.

A majority of teachers (85.3%) and planning and development professionals (85.4%)

believed that preserving biodiversity could enrich the leisure life of citizens

(somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed). 3.4% of teachers and 2.8% of planning and

development professionals considered the opposite (somewhat disagreed/ strongly

disagreed). About 11% of teachers (11.4%) and planning and development

professionals (11.8%) answered “So-so”.

About three quarters of teachers (74.6%) and planning and development professionals

(77.4%) somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed that the loss of biodiversity would affect

citizens’ living environment. 5.8% of teachers and 8.5% of planning and development


14.2% of planning and development professionals answered “So-so”.

Some 60% (63.8%) of teachers and some 50% (53.3%) of planning and development

professionals somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed that the loss of biodiversity would

affect citizens’ health. 12.8% of teachers and 14.6% of planning and development


CUHK HKSAR

71




32.1% of planning and development professionals indicated “So-so”.

Over 60% (61.4%) of teachers and over 55% (55.7%) of planning and development

professionals believed (somewhat agreed/ strong agreed) that preserving biodiversity

could bring economic gains to Hong Kong. 7.5% of teachers and 9.4% of planning

and development professionals suggested the otherwise (somewhat disagreed/

strongly disagreed). And 31.2% of teachers and 34.9% of planning and development

professionals said “So-so”.

Close to 60% (59.2%) of teachers and close to 50% (48.6%) of planning and

development professionals somewhat agreed/ strongly agreed that the loss of

biodiversity would lead to a decrease in food and product choices for citizens. 16.9%

of teachers and 21.2% did not think so (somewhat disagreed/ strongly disagreed). And

23.9% of teachers and 30.2% of planning and development professionals answered

“So-so”


CUHK HKSAR

72



Figure 21a: Teachers’ perceptions of the closeness to biodiversity


2.4 1.7 1.2 1.0 1.20.5

14.511.1

4.62.4

6.3

0.5

23.9

23.4

19.6

11.4

31.2

7.0

45.449.3

48.6

53.4

46.4

38.6

13.8 14.5

26.131.9

15.0

53.4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The loss of

biodiversity will

lead to a decrease

in food and product


The loss of

biodiversity will

affect citizens'

health

The loss of

biodiversity will

affect citizens'

living environment

Preserving

biodiversity can

enrich the leisure

life of citizens.

Preserving

biodiversity can

bring economic

gains to Hong

Kong

We must preserve


future generations



CUHK HKSAR

73



Figure 21b: Planning and development professionals’ perceptions of the closeness to biodiversity


4.71.4 0.5 0.9

1.4 0.9

16.5

13.2

8.01.9

8.0

0.9

30.2

32.1

14.2

11.8

34.9

7.5

31.6

29.2

40.6

36.3

29.7

22.2

17.0

24.1

36.8

49.1

25.9

68.4

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

The loss of

biodiversity will

lead to a decrease

in food and product


The loss of

biodiversity will

affect citizens'

health

The loss of

biodiversity will

affect citizens'

living environment

Preserving

biodiversity can

enrich the leisure

life of citizens.

Preserving

biodiversity can

bring economic

gains to Hong

Kong

We must preserve


future generations



CUHK HKSAR

74



The following groups perceived a significantly higher level of closeness of

biodiversity to the society (answered “somewhat agreed” or “strongly agreed”):

Closeness Items Demographic groups

(Teachers)

Demographic groups

(Planning and

development

professionals)

The loss of biodiversity will lead to a

decrease in food and product choices

for citizens.


NA NA

The loss of biodiversity will affect

citizens’ health.


With bachelor’s

degree or below

(69.3%)

Landscape architects/

urban planners/ urban

designers (75.9%)

The loss of biodiversity will affect

citizens’ living environment.


Teachers of


subjects (79.9%)

NA

Preserving biodiversity can enrich

the leisure life of citizens.


NA Professionals in

companies with 100

employees or less

(91.2%)

Preserving biodiversity can bring

economic gains to Hong Kong.


NA NA

We must preserve biodiversity for

the future generations.


Females (95.2%) NA


CUHK HKSAR

75



3.2.4 Willingness to Preserve Biodiversity

Teachers and planning and development professionals were most willing to sign

petitions to support biodiversity conservation and pay attention to information related

to biodiversity. 71.7% of teachers probably would/ definitely would do the former and

68.8% probably would/ definitely would do the latter; while 6.5% and 4.3% of

teachers probably would not/ definitely would not do so. Some 20% (21.7% and

26.8%) of teachers answered “So-so”. For planning and development professionals,

68.9% probably would/ definitely would sign petitions to support biodiversity

conservation and 74.1% probably would/ definitely would pay attention to

information related to biodiversity. 10.4% and 6.1% probably would not/ definitely

would not do so. About 20% (20.8% and 19.8%) answered “So-so”.

Encouraging families or friends to preserve biodiversity was the third action they

were most willing to do. 64.0% of teachers and 67.9% of planning and development

professionals expressed willingness to do so (probably would/ definitely would);

while 7.7% of teachers and 6.6% of planning and development professionals probably

would not/ definitely would not do so. 28.3% of teachers and 25.5% of planning and

development professionals answered “So-so”.

Boycotting products and services that would harm biodiversity came in the fourth

place. 62.3% of teachers and 66.0% of planning and development professionals were

willing to take this action (probably would/ definitely would). 7.2% of teachers and

5.7% of planning and development professionals probably would not/ definitely

would not do so. 30.4% of teachers and 28.3% of planning and development

professionals answered “So-so”.

However, less than half of the teachers probably would/ definitely would participate


CUHK HKSAR

76



in environmental activities related to biodiversity conservation (48.1%) and donate

money to associations dedicated to conserving biodiversity (46.1%). 11.8% and

12.6% of teachers probably would not/ definitely would not take part in the two

actions respectively, while about 40% (40.1% and 41.3%) answered “So-so”.

Similarly, planning and development professionals were least willing to take these

two actions. 51.9% of planning and development professionals indicated that they

probably would/ definitely would participate in environmental activities related to

biodiversity conservation and less than half of them (43.9%) probably would/

definitely would donate money to associations dedicated to conserving biodiversity.

Nearly 20% (18.9% and 19.3%) of them probably would not/ definitely would not

take the two actions respectively. 29.2% and 36.8% of them answered “So-so”. It

seemed that teachers and planning and development professionals tended to be less

willing to take actions that involve a lot of efforts (such as time and money) to

preserve biodiversity.


CUHK HKSAR

77



Figure 22a: Teachers’ willingness to preserve biodiversity


1.0 1.2 0.7 0.7 0.2 0.2

6.311.4 11.1

7.0 6.3 4.1

30.4

41.340.1

28.3

21.7 26.8

47.6

38.2 40.6

51.7

53.1

54.1

14.7

8.0 7.512.3

18.614.7

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Will you boycott

products and

services that would

harm biodiversity?

Will you donate

money to

associations

dedicated to

conserving

biodiversity?

Will you

participate in

environmental


biodiversity

conservation?

Will you encourage

your families or

friends to preserve

biodiversity?

Will you sign


biodiversity

conservation?

Will you pay

attention to

information related

to biodiversity?

Definitely will not Probably will not Half & half Probably will Definitely will


CUHK HKSAR

78



Figure 22b: Planning and development professionals’ willingness to preserve biodiversity


0.5 2.8 1.9 1.9 1.9 0.55.2

16.5 17.0

4.78.5

5.7

28.3

36.8

29.2

25.520.8

19.8

43.4

33.0

41.5

41.5

37.342.0

22.6

10.8 10.4

26.431.6 32.1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Will you boycott

products and

services that would

harm biodiversity?

Will you donate

money to

associations

dedicated to

conserving

biodiversity?

Will you

participate in

environmental


biodiversity

conservation?

Will you encourage

your families or

friends to preserve

biodiversity?

Will you sign


biodiversity

conservation?

Will you pay

attention to

information related

to biodiversity?

Definitely will not Probably will not Half & half Probably will Definitely will


CUHK HKSAR

79



The following groups had a significantly higher level of willingness to preserve

biodiversity (answered “probably will” or “definitely will”):

Willingness Items Demographic groups

(Teachers)

Demographic groups

(Planning and development

professionals)

Boycott products and services that

would harm biodiversity.


NA NA

Donate money to associations

dedicated to conserving biodiversity.


NA Landscape architects/


designers (65.5%)

Participate in environmental


conservation.


Secondary school

teachers (52.8%)

Teachers of


subjects (55.4%)



designers (82.8%)

Professionals in

companies with 100

employees or less (58.8%)

Encourage your families or friends to

preserve biodiversity.


NA Engineers (88.6%)

Sign petitions to support biodiversity

conservation.


Females (72.1%)

With bachelor’s

degree or below

(77.6%)

Professionals in

companies with 100

employees or less (86.8%)

Pay attention to information related

to biodiversity.


Secondary school

teachers (73.4%)

Teachers of


subjects (80.4%)

With postgraduate

education (85.1%)



designers (96.6%)


CUHK HKSAR

80



3.2.5 Overall Biodiversity Indexes

3.2.5.1 “Knowledge Index”

The “Knowledge Index” of teachers and planning and development professionals was

25.6 and 20.3 respectively. It means a quarter of teachers and a fifth of planning and

development professionals have heard of the term “biodiversity” and knew its

meaning, and that they also perceived themselves as being well-informed about the


The following groups had higher scores in the “Knowledge Index”:


Males (33.3%)

Aged 20-34 (35.6%)


Teachers of biodiversity related subjects (44.6%)




To further examine whether teachers and planning and development professionals

who were defined as knowledgeable about biodiversity (i.e. the 25.6% of teachers and

20.3% of planning and development professionals) were really more well-informed

about the biodiversity in Hong Kong, their performance in the three specific

knowledge-based questions was compared with that of those who were defined as less

knowledgeable about biodiversity (i.e. the other 74.4% of teachers and 79.7% of

planning and development professionals). The results illustrated that, for both


CUHK HKSAR

81



stakeholder groups, “knowledgeable” respondents had better performances than “less

knowledgeable” respondents: Nearly all “knowledgeable” teachers (99.1%) and

planning and development professionals (97.7%) could answer at least one

knowledge-based question correctly, whereas only 84.7% of “less knowledgeable”

teachers and 88.8% of “less knowledgeable” planning and development professionals

could answer at least one knowledge-based question correctly. Besides, while more

than 40% (42.5%) of “knowledgeable” teachers and more than 55% (55.8%) of

“knowledgeable” planning and development professionals could answer all three

knowledge-based questions correctly, only about 20% of their “less knowledgeable”

counterparts (20.5% and 20.7% respectively) could do so.8

Figure 23a: (Teachers) Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of biodiversity in Hong Kong

(Comparison)

Figure 23b: (Planning and development professionals) Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects

of biodiversity in Hong Kong (Comparison)

8 Chi-square test showed that the differences were significant for both stakeholder groups (p< .001).

0.9%

15.1%

41.5% 42.5%

15.3%22.4%

41.9%

20.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


question correctly

Anwered 1 question

correctly

Anwered 2 question

correctly

Anwered 3 question

correctly


2.3%9.3%

32.6%

55.8%

11.2%

28.4%

39.6%

20.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


question correctly

Anwered 1 question

correctly

Anwered 2 question

correctly

Anwered 3 question

correctly



CUHK HKSAR

82



3.2.5.2 “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index” and “Willingness Index”

The respective values of the “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index” and “Willingness

Index” were 4.04, 3.89, and 3.64 for teachers and 4.17, 3.94 and 3.72 for planning and

development professionals. In general, teachers and planning and development

professionals had positive attitude towards biodiversity conservation. They tended to

think that preserving biodiversity is important and agreed that biodiversity was

closely connected to the society in various aspects. They also tended to be willing to

take actions to preserve biodiversity.

Among all three indexes, the two stakeholder groups scored the highest in the

“Importance Index”. This was followed by the “Closeness Index” and both

stakeholder groups scored the lowest in the “Willingness Index”. This suggested that

although members of the two stakeholder groups valued biodiversity conservation,

they were less aware of the connection between biodiversity conservation and the

society. Moreover, although they recognized the importance of biodiversity

conservation and in some point were aware that it was closely connected to the society,

they were less prepared to make personal contributions9.

Figure 24a: (Teachers) The “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index”, and “Willingness Index”

9 The differences among mean scores of the three Indexes were examined using paired-samples t-tests. For the

“teachers” group, it was found that value of “Importance Index” was significantly higher than the values of both

“Closeness Index” (p< .001) and “Willingness Index” (p< .001), and the value of “Closeness Index” was

significantly higher than the value of “Willingness Index” (p< .001). The very same results also apply to the

“planning and development professionals” group.

4.04 3.893.64

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Importance Index Closeness Index Willingness Index


CUHK HKSAR

83



Figure 24b: (Planning and development professionals) The “Importance Index”, “Closeness Index”,

and “Willingness Index”

To further examine the different orientations among teachers and planning and

development professionals towards biodiversity, a subgroup analysis of the three

Indexes was conducted. The following demographic groups had higher scores in the

three Indexes:

Indexes Demographic groups

(Teachers)

Demographic groups (Planning and

development professionals)

“Importance Index”

(See Appendix 3, Table 4.27

& 5.27)

Teachers of biodiversity

related subjects (4.13)

Landscape architects/ urban

planners/ urban designers (4.47)

“Closeness Index”


& 5.28)



With postgraduate education

(4.07)

Landscape architects/ urban

planners/ urban designers (4.32)

Professionals in companies with

100 employees or less (4.10)

“Willingness Index”


& 5.29)



Aged 50 or above (3.94)

With postgraduate education

(3.87)

Engineer (4.15)

Professionals in companies with

100 employees or less (3.90)

4.173.94

3.72

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Importance Index Closeness Index Willingness Index


CUHK HKSAR

84



3.2.6 Teachers’ opinions and attitudes towards biodiversity in the sector

3.2.6.1 Whether their schools have enough teachers who are knowledgeable

about biodiversity

29.0% indicated that their schools did not have quite enough/ not at all enough

teachers who were knowledgeable about biodiversity. 12.3% expressed that they had

quite enough/ very enough teachers who were knowledgeable about biodiversity in

their schools. 58.7% answered “So-so”.

Figure 25: Does your school have enough teachers who are knowledgeable about biodiversity?

A higher proportion of the following groups thought that there were quite enough/

very enough teachers who were knowledgeable about biodiversity in their schools

(See Appendix 3, Table 4.30):


Teachers in private schools/ schools under direct subsidy scheme (23.3%)

4.8%

24.2%

58.7%

11.6%

0.7%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Not at all enough Not quite enough So-so Quite enough Very enough


CUHK HKSAR

85



3.2.6.2 Whether their schools value teaching students about biodiversity

conservation

22.9% considered their schools did not quite value/ not at all value teaching students

about biodiversity conservation while nearly the same number of teachers (22.2%)

suggested the opposite (quite valued/ very valued). Over half of them (54.8%)

answered “So-so”.

Figure 26: How much does your school value teaching students about biodiversity conservation?

A higher proportion of the following groups thought that their schools quite valued/

very valued biodiversity education (See Appendix 3, Table 4.31):


With teaching experience of 21 years or more (25.0%)

1.2%

21.7%

54.8%

20.3%

1.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Not at all Not quite So-so Quite Very


CUHK HKSAR

86



3.2.6.3 Whether their schools organize any biodiversity-related activities

More teachers (54.1%) indicated that their schools have never organized any

biodiversity-related activities than those indicated that their schools have done so

(44.9%). 1.0% expressed “No answer”.

Figure 27: Has your school ever organized any biodiversity-related activities?

A higher proportion of the following groups indicated that their schools have

organized biodiversity-related activities (See Appendix 3, Table 4.32):



44.9%

54.1%

1.0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Yes No No answer


CUHK HKSAR

87



3.2.6.4 The effectiveness of the current curriculum and teaching materials on

biodiversity education

37.9% suggested that the current curriculum and teaching materials on biodiversity

were not quite able/ not at all able to effectively enhance students’ awareness of

conservation. 12.8% were positive (quite able/ very able) about the effectiveness of

the current curriculum and teaching materials on biodiversity education.

Approximately half of them (49.3%) answered “So-so”.

Figure 28: Do you think the current curriculum and teaching materials on biodiversity are able to

effectively enhance students’ awareness of conservation?

A subgroup analysis found no significant differences between different groups of

teachers in terms of their answers to the question. (See Appendix 3, Table 4.33)

3.9%

34.1%

49.3%

12.1%

0.7%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Not at all able Not quite able So-so Quite able Very able


CUHK HKSAR

88



3.2.6.5 The government’s support to schools or teachers to teach biodiversity

60.6% thought that the government’s support to schools or teachers to teach

biodiversity was quite inadequate/ very inadequate. Merely 2.2% suggested the

opposite (quite adequate/ very adequate). 37.2% answered “So-so”.

Figure 29: Do you think the government has offered adequate support to schools or teachers to teach

biodiversity?

A higher proportion of the following groups considered the government’s support to

schools or teachers to teach biodiversity was quite adequate/ very adequate (See


Teachers in private schools/ schools under direct subsidy scheme (10.0%)

14.0%

46.6%

37.2%

1.9% 0.2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Very inadequate Quite inadequate So-so Quite adequate Very adequate


CUHK HKSAR

89



3.2.7 Planning and development professionals’ opinions and attitudes

towards biodiversity in the sector

3.2.7.1 Whether their professional sector is informed about biodiversity

Half (50.5%) of the planning and development professionals considered their

professional sector not quite well-informed/ not at all informed about biodiversity.

12.3% thought that it was quite well-informed/ very well-informed. 37.3% answered

“So-so”.

Figure 30: How informed do you feel your professional sector is about biodiversity?

A higher proportion of the following groups thought that their professional sector was

quite well-informed/ very well-informed about biodiversity (See Appendix 3, Table

5.30):


With postgraduate education (19.5%)


16.0%

34.4%37.3%

10.4%

1.9%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%


informed

So-so Quite well-

informed

Very well-informed


CUHK HKSAR

90



3.2.7.2 Whether their professional sector values biodiversity conservation

43.4% thought that biodiversity conservation was not quite valued/ not at all valued in

their professional sector. 17.9% suggested the opposite (quite valued and very valued).

38.7% answered “So-so”

Figure 31: How much does your professional sector value biodiversity conservation?

A higher proportion of the following groups indicated that their professional sector

quite valued/ very valued biodiversity conservation (See Appendix 3, Table 5.31):



With industry experience of 21 years or more (32.4%)

11.8%

31.6%

38.7%

14.6%

3.3%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Not at all Not quite So-so Quite Very


CUHK HKSAR

91



3.2.7.3 The considerations for biodiversity conservation in planning and

decision-making processes

When being asked whether their professional sectors incorporated considerations for

biodiversity conservation in planning and decision-making processes, the opinions

were diverse. One-third (34.4%) suggested that they probably would/ definitely would

do it, while one-third (33.0%) suggested that they probably would not/ definitely

would not do so. The remaining one-third (32.5%) answered “half & half”.

Figure 32: To your knowledge, would your professional sector incorporate considerations for

biodiversity conservation in planning and decision-making processes?

A higher proportion of the following groups thought that their professional sector

probably would/ definitely would incorporate considerations for biodiversity

conservation in planning and decision-making processes (See Appendix 3, Table

5.32):



With industry experience of 21 years or more (52.1%)

8.5%

24.5%

32.5%

25.9%

8.5%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Definitely would

not

Probably would not Half & half Probably would Definitely would


CUHK HKSAR

92



3.2.7.4 Whether incentives or pressures are adequate to urge their professional

sector to incorporate considerations for biodiversity conservation in

planning and decision making processes

61.8% considered the incentives or pressures quite inadequate/ very inadequate to

urge their professional sector to incorporate considerations for biodiversity

conservation in its planning and decision making processes. Only a tenth (10.8%)

considered the incentives or pressures quite adequate/ very adequate. 27.4% answered

“So-so”.

Figure 33: Are there sufficient incentives or pressure that urge your professional sector to incorporate

considerations for biodiversity conservation in its planning and decision making processes?

A higher proportion of the following groups considered that there were sufficient

incentives or pressure for their professional sector to incorporate considerations for

biodiversity conservation in planning and decision-making processes (See Appendix 3,

Table 5.33):

With postgraduate education (14.9%)


28.8%

33.0%

27.4%

8.0%

2.8%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



CUHK HKSAR

93



3.2.7.5 Views on the government’s job in promoting and educating their

professional sector on biodiversity conservation

70.8% thought that the government did not do an adequate job (very inadequate/ quite

inadequate) to promote and educate their professional sectors on biodiversity

conservation. Only 6.6% thought that the government had done a quite adequate/ very

adequate job. 22.6% answered “So-so”.

Figure 34: Do you think the government has done an adequate job to promote and educate your

professional sector on biodiversity conservation?

A subgroup analysis found no significant differences between different groups of

planning and development professionals in terms of their answers to the question.


34.0%36.8%

22.6%

6.1%

0.5%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%



CUHK HKSAR

94



3.3 Focus Group Discussion (Summary)

(A brief English summary of focus group findings is provided here. The full text in

Chinese is attached in Appendix 4.)

3.3.1 General Public

I. Knowledge towards biodiversity

About half of the focus group participants have heard of the term

“biodiversity” before, mainly through three channels: media, school

education, and participation in activities related to environmental protection

and nature conservation. Most of these participants expressed that they were

not very well-informed about the concept. Among the three aspects of

biodiversity, they were most familiar with species diversity but least

familiar with genetic diversity.

II. Attitude toward biodiversity

Most focus group participants indicated that they cared about biodiversity

for a number of reasons: (1) they cherished the nature; (2) they thought that

biodiversity was closely related to life quality; and (3) they did not wish to

witness the loss or even extinction of species. Some participants were less

concerned about biodiversity because they did not consider it had much to

do with their daily lives. Besides, they did not think that, as ordinary

citizens, they would be able to affect the urban development of the city.

Most focus group participants acknowledged the closeness of biodiversity

to their daily lives. For example, biodiversity would be related to their food

choices, air and water quality, and climate, etc. However, they did not think

that the loss of biodiversity would make many direct and instant impacts on


CUHK HKSAR

95



them, as its negative consequences would only start to surface in a long and

gradual time period. In this regard, they did recognize the long-term

problems of biodiversity loss, and therefore thought that biodiversity should

be conserved for future generations.

Many focus group participants would pay attention to whether their daily

habits would undermine the environment and were willing to take certain

actions (such as reduce household waste, avoid using products that are

harmful to the environment, and educate family members and friends about

environmental protection) to conserve the environment. However, some of

the participants were less willing to do so mainly because they would like to

live a convenient life.

As noted in the methodology section (section 2.3.1), participants of the

“general public” focus groups were categorized into “high”, “medium”, and

“low” groups according to their answers to the “Importance” questions in

the telephone survey. It was found that the three groups exhibited no major

differences in terms of their attitudes towards biodiversity conservation. As

discussed above, most participants were concerned about biodiversity and

thought that it was important to conserve it. However, some nuanced

differences among the three groups could be identified: a very tiny portion

of participants in the “low” group expressed that they actually had not much

concern about biodiversity, whereas no such participants were found in the

other two groups. Besides, participants in the “high” group have expressed

more concern about biodiversity and were more willing to take actions in

their daily lives to conserve biodiversity.


CUHK HKSAR

96



III. Social importance of biodiversity

Focus group participants opined that Hong Kong people generally lacked a

consciousness of environmental protection and a willingness to conserve the

environment. However, they noted that there have been improvements in

recent years, especially among the young people.

Many of them also thought that the Hong Kong government did not value

environmental protection either. In their views, over the years the

government has been placing more emphasis on economic developments at

the expense of nature conservation. Besides, it also lacked determination to

implement environmental protection policies.

Focus group participants held different views towards the relationship

between biodiversity conservation and urban development. Most of them

sensed the seriousness of the housing problem in Hong Kong (i.e., lack of

land supply for housing), but they were divided as to whether solving the

housing problem should come at the expense of biodiversity conservation

(e.g. developing the country parks). While many participants opposed the

development of country parks, some others found it acceptable as it could

mitigate the housing problem. Nevertheless, they all hoped to see the

co-existence of biodiversity conservation and economic development.

Most focus group participants considered that citizens, businesses, and the

government all had the responsibilities of conserving biodiversity. In

particular, the leading role of the government was of utmost importance.

The participants suggested the government to co-operate with businesses to

conserve biodiversity and also make efforts to promote and educate the

public about the issue.


CUHK HKSAR

97



3.3.2 Secondary School Teachers

I. Level of importance of biodiversity education in secondary

schools

Focus group participants opined that, although the current secondary school

curriculum covers biodiversity, generally speaking, secondary schools do

not attach much importance to biodiversity education.

The reasons for this, as explained by the participants, were: (1) there are

limitations in the secondary school curriculum; (2) the school principals

usually prioritize other issues over biodiversity education; and (3) there are

inadequate teachers who were informed about biodiversity.

II. Opinions on teaching materials and the effectiveness of

biodiversity-related curriculum

Focus group participants mainly make use of teaching kits supplied by

publishers and online information as teaching materials.

The opinions of focus group participants were divided as to whether the

current curriculum is able to enhance the students’ consciousness of

environmental protection. While some participants believed that the

students would benefit from the curriculum, others had reservations because

many students only care about exams.

III. Difficulties in organizing biodiversity-related activities in

secondary schools

Focus group participants believed that extra-curricular outdoor activities are

the key to biodiversity education, as it could bring students closer to the

nature.


CUHK HKSAR

98



However, they acknowledged several limitations and difficulties in

organizing such activities: (1) different schools might place different levels

of emphasis on extra-curricular outdoor activities; (2) lack of adequate

manpower and resources; and (3) lack of affordable environmental tours in

the community.

IV. Opinions on government support for biodiversity education in

secondary schools

Focus group participants suggested the government to offer support for

biodiversity education in secondary schools in the following ways: (1) to

strengthen the biodiversity-related curriculum; (2) to set concrete learning

goals; (3) to enhance teacher education and increase teaching resources; (4)

to support biodiversity-related teaching activities in secondary schools; and

(5) to provide incentives for schools, teachers and students.


CUHK HKSAR

99



3.3.3 Planning and Development Professionals

I. Consciousness and level of importance of biodiversity

conservation in the planning and development sector

Focus group participants indicated that the practitioners in the professional

sector are not very conscious of biodiversity conservation and do not attach

much importance to it.

The reasons for this, as explained by the participants, were: (1) the sector

merely acts according to minimum requirements of the law; (2) it prioritizes

economic efficiency over biodiversity conservation; and (3) the sector lacks

adequate understanding of the issue.

II. Incentives and pressures for the planning and development sector

to conserve biodiversity

As mentioned above, the professional sector would only abide by the law

and focus on economic efficiency when undertaking infrastructure projects.

Biodiversity conservation is not their main consideration in the planning

and decision-making process. However, focus group participants noted that

in recent years there has been a growing trend of developers and their

professional sector paying more attention to environmental protection. For

example, they have become increasingly concerned about their

performances in the “Beam Plus”, as this initiative would provide economic

incentives for their infrastructure projects. Besides, they also thought that

developers might value environmental protection as it would be conducive

to corporate branding.

In terms of pressure, focus group participants acknowledged no pressure to


CUHK HKSAR

100



conserve biodiversity. For example, their works would not be swayed by

public opinion.

III. Opinions on government’s efforts in promoting and educating the

planning and development sector on biodiversity

Focus group participants considered that the government had done an

inadequate job to promote and educate the professional sector on

biodiversity.

They advised the government to organize more professional seminars and

make continuous efforts to promote the issue to the practitioners.

IV. Opinions on government support for the implementation of

biodiversity conservation measures in the planning and

development sector

Focus group participants suggested the government support the professional

sector implement biodiversity conservation measures in several ways: (1) to

review the existing environment impact assessment mechanism; (2) to

devise policies to regulate the business sector and the planning and

development sector; (3) to serve as a role model for others to follow; and (4)

to designate the Development Bureau to implement biodiversity

conservation policies.


CUHK HKSAR

101



4 Discussion and Conclusion

Based on the research findings of the telephone survey, online survey and focus group

discussions, this concluding chapter will summarize and discuss the overall findings

of the study.

4.1 Limited Understanding of Biodiversity

First of all, the study has shown a limited understanding of biodiversity among Hong

Kong’s citizens, as indicated by the low value of the “Knowledge Index” (2.4).

Specifically, the telephone survey results demonstrated that over half of Hong Kong

citizens (53.0%) have not heard of the term “biodiversity” (section 3.1.1.1). Besides,

only less than 5% (4.3%) of Hong Kong citizens thought that they were well-informed

about the biodiversity in Hong Kong, whereas more than half of them (53.7%) said

they were not well-informed about the issue (section 3.1.1.2). Likewise, Hong Kong

citizens who participated in focus group discussions also appeared to lack

understanding of the concept of biodiversity. For instance, while some of them knew

that the concept referred to “species diversity”, most of them were not aware of the

other two components of the concept (“genetic diversity” and “ecosystem diversity”).

Compared to the general public, the two stakeholder groups seemed to have a better

understanding of biodiversity. The online survey found that the respective values of

“Knowledge Index” of teachers and planning and development professionals were

25.6 and 20.3 (section 3.2.5.1). However, as noted in the methodology section

(section 2.2.2), due to the self-selection bias of the sampling method of the online

survey, respondents who were more knowledgeable about biodiversity tended to be

over-represented in the sample. Therefore, these results should be interpreted with


CUHK HKSAR

102



caution. Indeed, a closer look at other question items in the online survey and the

focus group findings would reveal a lack of adequate understanding of biodiversity in

the two sectors. Results of the online survey demonstrated that, only about 12%

(12.3%) of teachers thought that their schools had enough teachers who were

knowledgeable about biodiversity (section 3.2.6.1). Similarly, around 12% (12.3%) of

planning and development professionals considered their professional sector

well-informed about biodiversity (section 3.2.7.1). These survey results echoed the

focus group findings. In the focus group discussion with teachers, participants

indicated that most teachers, except those teaching related subjects (e.g. Geography,

Biology, Science, General Studies/ Liberal Studies) were generally were not

well-informed about the issue. Planning and development professionals participating

in the focus groups noted a dearth of understanding of biodiversity among the

practitioners in the field.

4.2 Lack of Societal Concern about Biodiversity

The study has revealed a lack of societal concern about biodiversity in Hong Kong.

Only about 15% (14.8%) of Hong Kong citizens have indicated their concern for the

biodiversity in Hong Kong, as found by the telephone survey (section 3.1.2.1). In the

focus group discussions with the general public, many participants expressed notable

personal concern about biodiversity conservation for various reasons (i.e. cherishing

the nature; maintaining quality of life; and preventing the loss and extinction of

species). However, they perceived a relatively lack of concern about biodiversity

conservation in the society at large. They attributed this phenomenon to the lifestyle

of Hong Kong citizens, who often prioritized convenience and consumerism over

environmental protection.


CUHK HKSAR

103



A general lack of concern about biodiversity could also be discerned in the two

stakeholder groups. While in the online survey a considerable amount of teachers

(37.2%) and planning and development professionals (56.6%) expressed that they

were personally concerned about the biodiversity in Hong Kong (section 3.2.2.1),

they suggested a different scenario in their respective fields at large. In the education

sector, only a small portion (22.2%) of teachers conceived that their schools valued

teaching students about biodiversity conservation (section 3.2.6.2). Besides, over half

of the teachers (54.1%) said that their schools have not organized any

biodiversity-related activities (section 3.2.6.3). In the focus group discussion with

teachers, the participants pointed out various reasons that have hindered biodiversity

education in secondary schools − limitations of biodiversity-related curriculum;

school principals usually prioritized other issues over biodiversity education; and a

lack of teachers who are knowledgeable about biodiversity.

Similarly, there was only a small size (17.9%) of planning and development

professionals who thought that their professional sector valued biodiversity

conservation (section 3.2.7.2). Besides, just more than one-third (34.4%) of them

suggested that their professional sector would incorporate considerations for

biodiversity conservation in planning and decision-making processes (section 3.2.7.3).

In the focus group with planning and development professionals, participants

explained that their professional sector did not attach much importance to biodiversity

conservation because the sector merely acted according to minimum requirements of

the law regarding environmental protection; it prioritized economic efficiency over

biodiversity conservation; and it basically lacked adequate understanding of

biodiversity. All these have undermined the consciousness and willingness of the

professional sector to conserve biodiversity.


CUHK HKSAR

104



4.3 Gap between Knowledge, Attitude and Behavior in Biodiversity

Conservation The study has identified a discrepancy between people’s knowledge and attitude

towards biodiversity. While people lacked knowledge about biodiversity, a large

percentage of them considered biodiversity conservation important to them. A

possible explanation for this is that although people might not regard themselves as

knowledgeable about biodiversity specifically, they might have a general sense that

biodiversity was closely related to environmental protection, which has a widespread

support in Hong Kong. For example, in the focus groups, some members of the public

noted that they would undertake certain pro-environment actions (such as reducing

household waste, recycling, and avoiding non-environmental friendly products) for

the sake of protecting environment in general, but without knowing whether these

actions had anything to do with the conservation of biodiversity.

Besides, the research findings have also revealed a gap between the attitude and

behavior of Hong Kong citizens in biodiversity conservation. This was indicated by

the significant differences between the “Importance Index” (3.84), “Closeness Index”

(3.70) and “Willingness Index” (3.28), as explained in the following paragraphs.

Hong Kong citizens have expressed a high level of recognition of the importance to

preserve biodiversity (section 3.1.2). In the telephone survey, about 70% (71.6%) of

respondents indicated that public promotion and education on biodiversity was

important. Similarly, about 70% (70.6%) of respondents stated that biodiversity

conservation must be taken into account when undertaking infrastructure and land

development projects. Besides, around 70% to 80% of respondents thought that the

government, businesses and Hong Kong citizens had their own responsibilities to


CUHK HKSAR

105



preserve the biodiversity of Hong Kong. All these results suggest a pretty consistent

view of Hong Kong citizens towards various aspects of the importance of biodiversity

preservation.

However, Hong Kong citizens have expressed mixed views about the closeness of

biodiversity to the society (section 3.1.3). In the telephone survey, respondents

evaluated the closeness of biodiversity to different aspects of the society in varying

degrees: most respondents (80.8%) agreed that biodiversity has to be preserved for

future generations; some 60% (64.9%) thought that preserving biodiversity could

enrich the leisure life of citizens; close to half of the respondents suggested that the

loss of biodiversity would affect people’s health (48.4%) and would lead to a decrease

in food and product choices for citizens (47.8%); and the least amount of respondents

indicated that biodiversity conservation could bring economic gains to Hong Kong

(40.8%). In the focus groups, participants explained their discrepancies in evaluating

the closeness of biodiversity. It is found that they generally recognized the long-term

significance of biodiversity conservation for the sustainable development of the city,

and hence the need to conserve biodiversity for future generations. However, many of

them did not acknowledge the loss of biodiversity as an urgent problem for they

believed the loss of biodiversity would not affect their present lives and the society at

large immediately.

Compared to the relatively higher levels of recognitions of the importance of

biodiversity conservation and the closeness of biodiversity to the society, Hong Kong

citizens have expressed a lower level of willingness in making personal efforts to

conserve biodiversity (section 3.1.4). Over half of the respondents in the telephone

survey indicated that they were willing to sign petitions to support biodiversity


CUHK HKSAR

106



conservation (56.2%) and to encourage families and friends to conserve biodiversity

(54.4%). However, less than half of the respondents were willing to boycott products

and services that would harm biodiversity (40.1%), pay attention to information

related to biodiversity (39.3%), donate money to associations dedicated to conserving

biodiversity (27.8%), and participate in environmental activities related to

biodiversity conservation (21.3%). In the focus groups, participants discussed the

attitude-behavior gap of Hong Kong citizens in biodiversity conservation. While

many participants would take certain actions to preserve biodiversity, some of them,

though recognizing the importance of biodiversity conservation, were less willing to

make personal efforts to preserve biodiversity due to laziness and lack of a sense of

efficacy (i.e. do not believe individual actions matter). With regard to the public in

general, as mentioned in earlier sections, participants thought that Hong Kong citizens

generally were quite reluctant to make efforts to conserve biodiversity as they have

attached more importance to convenience and efficiency than environmental

protection.

For the two stakeholder groups, a similar gap between attitude and behavior in

biodiversity conservation also existed, which was demonstrated by the significant

differences between the three Indexes in the online survey (section 3.2.5.2). The

pattern observed was similar to that of the general public.

4.4 Importance of Collaborative Efforts

One major finding of the study is that the general public and the two stakeholder

groups generally thought that collaborative efforts are the key to biodiversity

conservation in Hong Kong. For the general public, the telephone survey found that

about 80% of respondents opined that the Hong Kong government had a huge


CUHK HKSAR

107



responsibility to conserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong (79.3%) and that citizens

had a responsibility to change their daily habits so as to conserve the biodiversity in

Hong Kong (78.8%). Besides, about 70% (70.5%) of respondents indicated that the

business sector also had its share of responsibility (section 3.1.2.2). These data

resonate with the findings identified in focus groups, where many participants

suggested that all three parties had their relevant responsibilities to contribute to


Overall speaking, the general public demanded the government to assume a leading

role in biodiversity conservation. It was suggested that the government, as the largest

developer in Hong Kong, could create exemplar public infrastructure projects that

implement biodiversity conservation measures at the highest standards. Doing so will

demonstrate the government’s commitment to biodiversity conservation and send out

a clear message to the public that infrastructural developments could be done without

at the expense of biodiversity conservation.

In addition to the government’s own efforts, members of the general public also

envisioned the business sector and the society at large to play important roles in the

collective endeavor of conserving biodiversity in Hong Kong with the support of the

government. For the latter, more efforts have to be paid to public education and

promotion, which would be the key to the enhancement of citizens’ knowledge and

awareness towards biodiversity and to the long-term facilitation of biodiversity

conservation in Hong Kong. As for the business sector, the general public believed

that it also had an unavoidable responsibility to help conserve biodiversity. In focus

groups, some participants attributed the businesses as a main culprit of environmental

degradation. The businesses were accused of prioritizing their vested interests at the


CUHK HKSAR

108



expense of environmental protection for a long time. Hence, they had the obligation to

right the wrongs. In this regard, the government could consider enforcing tougher

environmental regulations on the business sector. At the same time, it could also

provide more incentives to engage the business sector in environmental protection.

The views regarding the importance of collaborative efforts were also shared by the

two stakeholder groups. Similar to the general public, the two stakeholder groups

have also demanded for stronger government leadership to facilitate and support their

respective sectors to engage in the collaborative efforts of biodiversity conservation.

Yet, both stakeholder groups conceived government’s support to them insufficient:

About 60% (60.6%) of teachers thought that inadequate support was provided by the

government to teachers and schools to teach biodiversity (section 3.2.6.5). Besides,

about 70% (70.8%) of planning and development professionals considered an

inadequate job by the government in promoting and educating their professional

sector on biodiversity conservation (section 3.2.7.5).

In view of the lack of adequate understanding of biodiversity in their sectors, both the

teachers and planning and development professionals expressed that they would like

to have more professional training opportunities so as to equip themselves with

necessary knowledge about biodiversity.

To enhance biodiversity education in schools, the teachers suggested strengthening

the biodiversity-related curriculum, stipulating concrete learning goals of biodiversity

education, increasing manpower and resources for teaching biodiversity in schools,

providing support for schools to organize biodiversity-related teaching activities, and

offering incentives to schools, teachers and students to engage in biodiversity

education.


CUHK HKSAR

109



For helping the planning and development sector to better understand biodiversity and

incorporate biodiversity conservation measures in infrastructure projects, the

practitioners advised the government to make continuous efforts to promote the issue

of biodiversity to the sector, such as organizing more professional seminars to educate

practitioners about biodiversity. Besides, the government could also raise the

awareness of biodiversity conservation in the sector through legal and policy means,

such as by strengthening biodiversity-related components in the existing environment

impact assessment mechanism, and devising policies to guide and encourage the

business sector and the planning and development sector to implement biodiversity

conservation measures.

All in all, both the general public and the two stakeholder groups have recognized the

importance of collaborative efforts to biodiversity conservation in Hong Kong. To this

end, the government is expected to be a leader and a facilitator to devise and

implement policies and supportive measures to help and rally different social sectors

to conserve biodiversity together.


CUHK HKSAR

110



Appendix 1

Questionnaires and

Discussion Guides


CUHK HKSAR

111



Questionnaire for Telephone Survey


School of Journalism and Communication


Telephone Survey on the Attitude and Knowledge of the General Public towards

Biodiversity in Hong Kong

Part 1 Sampling & Confirmation

Introduction

Good evening. This is the Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey at the Chinese

University of Hong Kong. We are conducting an opinion survey on “Hong Kong Society and

Environment”. The survey is commissioned by the Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation

Department of the HKSAR Government. May I take a moment to ask you a few questions? We

would highly appreciate your assistance.

Sampling

First, we have to randomly select a member in your family for this interview.

Could you please tell us, how many family members are aged between 15 and 64 in your

household, excluding domestic helper?

【If there is only one eligible respondent, interview him/her.】

【If there are more than one eligible respondent：

“In order to randomly select a respondent, we would like to interview the family member

whose birthday will come the soonest.”】

Confirmation

Just as a confirmation, are you currently a Hong Kong resident aged between 15 and 64,

Sir/Madam?

1. Yes

2. No【“Sorry, but we only interview Hong Kong residents aged between 15 and 64.” -

Back to ‘Sampling’】

DM1. Gender: 【No need to ask】

1. Male

2. Female


CUHK HKSAR

112



Part 2 Main Questions

1. Knowledge towards biodiversity

Q1. Have you ever heard of the term “biodiversity”?

If the answer is “yes”, ask “Do you know what does the term mean?”

1. Have heard of it, and know what it means

2. Have heard of it, but don’t know what it means

3. Have not heard of it

4. No answer/ Refuse to answer

The interviewer reads out: “Biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms. It has three main

aspects: 1. variation among individuals within the same species; 2. different kinds of species; and

3. a variety of habitats, such as forests, grasslands, and mudflats, etc. With a favorable climatic

condition and geographical location, Hong Kong has rich biodiversity.”

Q2. How informed do you feel about the biodiversity in Hong Kong? Not at all informed, Not

quite well-informed, So-so, Quite well-informed, or Vey well-informed?

1. Not at all informed

2. Not quite well-informed

3. So-so

4. Quite well-informed

5. Very well-informed


Q3. Can you name ONE designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong? Please


【Do not read out the answer】

1. Shing Mun 21. Yan Chau Tong

2. Kam Shan 22. Hoi Ha Wan

3. Lion Rock 23. Sha Chau & Lung Kwu Chau

4. Aberdeen 24. Tung Ping Chau

5. Tai Tam 25. Cape D’ Aguilar

6. Sai Kung East 26. Tolo Channel

7. Sai Kung West 27. Bluff Head

8. Plover Cover 28. High Island

9. Lantau South 29. Sharp Island

10. Lantau North 30. Ung Kong Group


CUHK HKSAR

113



11. Pat Sin Leng 31. Ninepin Island

12. Tai Lam 32. Sham Wan

13. Tai Mo Shan 33. Tim Tso Ha

14. Lam Tsuen 34. Mai Po

15. Ma On Shan 35. Hong Kong Wetland Park

16. Kiu Tsui 36. Others (Please Specify)

17. Shek O 98. Can’t tell/ Don’t know

18. Pok Fu Lam 99. Refuse to answer

19. Clear Water Bay

20. Lung Fu Shan

Q4. Do you know how much of Hong Kong’s land area is designated as country parks and special

areas? About 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, or Don’t Know?

1. About 20%

2. About 30%

3. About 40%

4. About 50%

5. Don’t know

6. Refuse to answer

Q5. Can you name ONE local wild animal or plant that is legally protected in Hong Kong? Please


【Do not read out the answer】

1. Cetaceans (Dolphins, whales, porpoises) 24. Camellias

2. Chelonians 25. Crape Myrtles

(Turtles, terrapins, tortoises etc.)

3. Primates (Monkeys etc.) 26. Orchids

4. All wild birds 27. Azaleas

5. Romer’s Tree Frog 28. Star-anises

6. Hong Kong Newt 29. Magnolias

7. Hong Kong Cascade Frog 30. Tree Ferns

8. Bats 31. Ailanthus

9. Chinese Pangolin 32. Amentotaxus

10. Chinese Porcupine 33. Mules-foot Fern

11. Squirrels 34. India Birthwort

12. Common Red Fox 35. Bird’s-nest Fern

13. Masked Palm Civet 36. Hong Kong Dogwood

14. Small Indian Civet 37. Crescent-leaved Sundew


CUHK HKSAR

114



15. Large Indian Civet 38. Chinese New Year Flower

16. Otter 39. Illigera

17. Chinese Ferret Badger 40. Hong Kong Balsam

18. Leopard Cat 41. Hong Kong Iris

19. Dugongs 42. Keteleeria

20. Reeves’ Muntjac/ Barking Deer 43. Chinese Lily

21. Burmese Python 44. Pitcher-plants

22. Water Monitor 45. Pavetta

23. Birdwing Butterfly 46. Balloon Flower

47. Kwangtung Rehdertree

48. Rhodoleia

49. Tutcheria

50. Schoepfia

51. Others (Please specify)

98. Can’t tell /Don’t know

99. Refuse to answer

2. Attitude towards HK’s biodiversity

I. Importance of preserving biodiversity

Q6. How concerned are you about the biodiversity in Hong Kong? Not at all concerned, Not quite

concerned, So-so, Quite concerned or Very concerned?

1. Not at all concerned

2. Not quite concerned

3. So-so

4. Quite concerned

5. Very concerned


The following are several statements about biodiversity. Please tell me to what extent do you

agree with them.

Q7. “Economic development is more important than preserving biodiversity.” Strongly disagree,

Somewhat disagree, So-so, Somewhat agree, or Strongly agree?

Q8. “It is very important to promote and educate the public on biodiversity.” Strongly disagree,



CUHK HKSAR

115



Q9. “When undertaking infrastructure and land development projects, we must take into

account biodiversity conservation.” Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree, So-so,

Somewhat agree, or Strongly agree?

Q10. “Preserving the biodiversity in Hong Kong is a huge responsibility of the government.”

Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree, So-so, Somewhat agree, or Strongly agree?

Q11. “The business sector has a responsibility to preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong.”


Q12. “Citizens have a responsibility to change their daily habits so as to preserve the biodiversity

in Hong Kong.” Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree, So-so, Somewhat agree, or Strongly

agree?

1. Strongly disagree

2. Somewhat disagree

3. So-so

4. Somewhat agree

5. Strongly agree


II. Closeness to biodiversity

Q13. “The loss of biodiversity will lead to a decrease in food and product choices for citizens.”


Q14. “The loss of biodiversity will affect citizens’ health.” Strongly disagree, Somewhat disagree,

So-so, Somewhat agree, or Strongly agree?

Q15. “The loss of biodiversity will affect citizens’ living environment.” Strongly disagree,


Q16. “Preserving biodiversity can enrich the leisure life of citizens.” Strongly disagree, Somewhat

disagree, So-so, Somewhat agree, or Strongly agree?

Q17. “Preserving biodiversity can bring economic gains to Hong Kong.” Strongly disagree,



CUHK HKSAR

116



Q18. “We must preserve biodiversity for the future generations.” Strongly disagree, Somewhat

disagree, So-so, Somewhat agree, or Strongly agree?

1. Strong disagree

2. Somewhat disagree

3. So-so

4. Somewhat agree

5. Strongly agree


III. Willingness to preserve biodiversity

Please tell me whether you will do the following things to preserve biodiversity.

Q19. Will you boycott products and services that would harm biodiversity? Definitely will not,

Probably will not, Half & half, Probably will, or Definitely will?

Q20. Will you donate money to associations dedicated to conserving biodiversity? Definitely will

not, Probably will not, Half & half, Probably will, or Definitely will?

Q21. Will you participate in environmental activities related to biodiversity conservation?

Definitely will not, Probably will not, Half & half, Probably will, or Definitely will?

Q22. Will you encourage your families or friends to preserve biodiversity? Definitely will not,

Probably will not, Half & half, Probably will, or Definitely will?

Q23. Will you sign petitions to support biodiversity conservation? Definitely will not, Probably

will not, Half & half, Probably will, or Definitely will?

Q24. Will you pay attention to information related to biodiversity? Definitely will not, Probably

will not, Half & half, Probably will, or Definitely will?

1. Definitely will not

2. Probably will not

3. Half& half

4. Probably will

5. Definitely will



CUHK HKSAR

117



Part 3 Demographics

Finally, we would like to ask you some basic information for statistics analysis.

DM2. What is your age?

1. 15-19

2. 20-24

3. 25-29

4. 30-34

5. 35-39

6. 40-44

7. 45-49

8. 50-54

9. 55-59

10. 60-64


DM3. What is your educational level?

1. No formal schooling/ Kindergarten

2. Primary

3. Secondary (F.1 – F.3)



6. Tertiary (non-degree)

7. Tertiary (Bachelor degree)

8. Postgraduate (Such as Master or PhD degree)

9. Refuse to answer

DM4. What is your occupation?

If the answer is “not working”, ask “Are you a student, a home-maker, retired or

unemployed?”

1. Managers and administers

2. Professionals

3. Associate professionals

4. Clerks

5. Service workers and shop sales workers

6. Blue-collar workers

7. Students

8. Housewives/ Home-makers

9. Retired

10. Unemployed

11. Others 【Please specify】


CUHK HKSAR

118




DM5. Which district do you live in? Hong Kong Island, Kowloon East, Kowloon West, New

Territories East, or New Territories West?

1. Hong Kong Island

2. Kowloon East

3. Kowloon West

4. New Territories East

5. New Territories West

6. Refuse to answer

DM6. What is your monthly household income?

【Include all kinds of income: salary, profits or interests from business/investments, social

security etc.】

1. $9,999 or below

2. $10,000 - $19,999

3. $20,000 - $29,999

4. $30,000 - $39,999

5. $40,000 - $49,999

6. $50,000 – $59,999

7. $60,000- $99,999

8. $100,000 or above

9. Don’t know/ Refuse to answer

** This is the end of the interview. Thanks a lot, goodbye!**


CUHK HKSAR

119



Questionnaire for Online Survey – Teachers




Online Survey on the Attitude and Knowledge of Primary and Secondary School

Teachers towards Biodiversity in Hong Kong

Hello. In order to understand the attitude and knowledge of primary and secondary school teachers

towards the biodiversity in Hong Kong, the Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department of the

HKSAR Government has commissioned the Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey at

the Chinese University of Hong Kong to conduct an online survey.

We would like to invite you to participate in this survey, the results of which shall greatly contribute to

the policy formulation of the government in the future.

The survey is very simple, which would take you around 5 minutes. The information you provide will

be kept strictly confidential and used for statistical and research purposes only.

_____________________________________________________________________

Part 1: Knowledge towards biodiversity


If the answer is “yes”, Do you know what does the term mean?




Biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms. It has three main aspects: 1. variation among

individuals within the same species; 2. different kinds of species; and 3. a variety of habitats, such

as forests, grasslands, and mudflats, etc. With a favorable climatic condition and geographical

location, Hong Kong has rich biodiversity.

Q2. How informed do you feel about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?



3. So-so




CUHK HKSAR

120



Q3. To your knowledge, please write down ONE designated protected area for nature


1. Please write down: _________________________________________________

2. Don’t know


areas?

1. About 20%

2. About 30%

3. About 40%

4. About 50%

5. Don’t know

Q5. To your knowledge, please write down ONE local wild animal or plant that is legally

protected in Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about.


2. Don’t know

Part 2: Attitude towards HK’s biodiversity


Q6. How concerned are you about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?



3. So-so

4. Quite concerned

5. Very concerned


CUHK HKSAR

121



To what extent do you agree with the following statements about preserving biodiversity?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

So-so Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Q7. Economic development is more important


Q8. It is very important to promote and

educate the public on biodiversity.

Q9. When undertaking infrastructure and land



Q10. Preserving the biodiversity in Hong Kong

is a huge responsibility of the

government.

Q11. The business sector has a responsibility to

preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong

Q12. Citizens have a responsibility to change




To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the impacts of biodiversity on

citizens?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

So-so Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Q13. The loss of biodiversity will lead to a

decrease in food and product choices for

citizens.

Q14. The loss of biodiversity will affect citizens’

health.

Q15. The loss of biodiversity will affect


Q16. Preserving biodiversity can enrich the

leisure life of citizens.

Q17. Preserving biodiversity can bring


Q18. We must preserve biodiversity for the

future generations.


CUHK HKSAR

122




Will you do the following things to preserve biodiversity?

Definitely

will not

Probably

will not

Half &

half

Probably

will

Definitely

will

Q19. Will you boycott products and services

that would harm biodiversity?

Q20. Will you donate money to associations

dedicated to conserving biodiversity?

Q21. Will you participate in environmental


conservation?

Q22. Will you encourage your families or

friends to preserve biodiversity?

Q23. Will you sign petitions to support

biodiversity conservation?

Q24. Will you pay attention to information

related to biodiversity?

Part 3: Opinion and Attitude towards biodiversity in the education sector

Q25. Does your school have enough teachers who are knowledgeable about biodiversity?

1. Not at all enough

2. Not quite enough

3. So-so

4. Quite enough

5. Very enough

Q26. How much does your school value teaching students about biodiversity conservation?

1. Not at all

2. Not quite

3. So-so

4. Quite

5. Very


CUHK HKSAR

123



Q27. Has your school ever organized any biodiversity-related activities?

1. Yes

2. No

Q28. Do you think the current curriculum and teaching materials on biodiversity are able to

effectively enhance students’ awareness of conservation?

1. Not at all able

2. Not quite able

3. So-so

4. Quite able

5. Very able

Q29. Do you think the government has offered adequate support to schools or teachers to teach

biodiversity?

1. Very inadequate

2. Quite inadequate

3. So-so

4. Quite adequate

5. Very adequate

Part 4: Demographics

DM1. Gender:

1. Male

2. Female

DM2. Age:

1. 20-24

2. 25-29

3. 30-34

4. 35-39

5. 40-44

6. 45-49

7. 50-54

8. 55-59

9. 60 or above


CUHK HKSAR

124



DM3. Educational level:

1. Secondary




DM4a. Current teaching school:

1. Primary

2. Secondary

DM4b. Type of your current teaching school:

1. Government school

2. Aided school

3. Private school

4. School under direct subsidy scheme

5. Caput school

DM5. Current teaching subjects:

【Can choose multiple items】

1. Chinese

2. English

3. Mathematics

4. Liberal studies/ General studies

5. Geography

6. Biology

7. Chemistry/ Physics

8. Science

9. Accountancy/ Economics

10. Chinese history/ History

11. Music/ Visual arts/ Physical education

12. Other (please specify): ________________

DM6. Years of teaching experience:

_________________ Year(s)

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for your time to complete the survey.


CUHK HKSAR

125



Questionnaire for Online Survey – Planning and Development

Professionals




Online Survey on the Attitude and Knowledge of Planning and Development

Professionals towards Biodiversity in Hong Kong

Hello. In order to understand the attitude and knowledge of planning and development professionals

towards the biodiversity in Hong Kong, the Agriculture, Fisheries & Conservation Department of the

HKSAR Government has commissioned the Centre for Communication and Public Opinion Survey at

the Chinese University of Hong Kong to conduct an online survey.

We would like to invite you to participate in this survey, the results of which shall greatly contribute to

the policy formulation of the government in the future.

The survey is very simple, which would take you around 5 minutes. The information you provide will

be kept strictly confidential and used for statistical and research purposes only.

_____________________________________________________________________

Part 1: Knowledge towards biodiversity


If the answer is “yes”, Do you know what does the term mean?




Biodiversity refers to the variety of life forms. It has three main aspects: 1. variation among

individuals within the same species; 2. different kinds of species; and 3. a variety of habitats, such

as forests, grasslands, and mudflats, etc. With a favorable climatic condition and geographical

location, Hong Kong has rich biodiversity.

Q2. How informed do you feel about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?



3. So-so




CUHK HKSAR

126



Q3. To your knowledge, please write down ONE designated protected area for nature



2. Don’t know


areas?

1. About 20%

2. About 30%

3. About 40%

4. About 50%

5. Don’t know

Q5. To your knowledge, please write down ONE local wild animal or plant that is legally

protected in Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about.


2. Don’t know

Part 2: Attitude towards HK’s biodiversity


Q6. How concerned are you about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?



3. So-so

4. Quite concerned

5. Very concerned


CUHK HKSAR

127



To what extent do you agree with the following statements about preserving biodiversity?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

So-so Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Q7. Economic development is more important


Q8. It is very important to promote and

educate the public on biodiversity.

Q9. When undertaking infrastructure and land



Q10. Preserving the biodiversity in Hong Kong

is a huge responsibility of the

government.

Q11. The business sector has a responsibility to

preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong

Q12. Citizens have a responsibility to change




To what extent do you agree with the following statements about the impacts of biodiversity on

citizens?

Strongly

disagree

Somewhat

disagree

So-so Somewhat

agree

Strongly

agree

Q13. The loss of biodiversity will lead to a

decrease in food and product choices for

citizens.

Q14. The loss of biodiversity will affect citizens’

health.

Q15. The loss of biodiversity will affect


Q16. Preserving biodiversity can enrich the

leisure life of citizens.

Q17. Preserving biodiversity can bring


Q18. We must preserve biodiversity for the

future generations.


CUHK HKSAR

128




Will you do the following things to preserve biodiversity?

Definitely

will not

Probably

will not

Half &

half

Probably

will

Definitely

will

Q19. Will you boycott products and services

that would harm biodiversity?

Q20. Will you donate money to associations

dedicated to conserving biodiversity?

Q21. Will you participate in environmental


conservation?

Q22. Will you encourage your families or

friends to preserve biodiversity?

Q23. Will you sign petitions to support

biodiversity conservation?

Q24. Will you pay attention to information

related to biodiversity?

Part 3: Opinion and Attitude towards biodiversity in the planning and development sector

Q25. How informed do you feel your professional sector is about biodiversity?



3. So-so



Q26. How much does your professional sector value biodiversity conservation?

1. Not at all

2. Not quite

3. So-so

4. Quite

5. Very


CUHK HKSAR

129



Q27. To your knowledge, would your professional sector incorporate considerations for

biodiversity conservation in planning and decision-making processes?

1. Definitely would not

2. Probably would not

3. Half & half

4. Probably would

5. Definitely would

Q28. Are there sufficient incentives or pressure that urge your professional sector to incorporate


1. Very inadequate

2. Quite inadequate

3. So-so

4. Quite adequate

5. Very adequate

Q29. Do you think the government has done an adequate job to promote and educate your

professional sector on biodiversity conservation?

1. Very inadequate

2. Quite inadequate

3. So-so

4. Quite adequate

5. Very adequate

Part 4: Demographics

DM1. Gender:

1. Male

2. Female

DM2. Age:

1. 20-24

2. 25-29

3. 30-34

4. 35-39

5. 40-44

6. 45-49

7. 50-54


CUHK HKSAR

130



8. 55-59

9. 60 or above

DM3. Educational level:

1. Secondary




DM4. Occupation:

1. Architect

2. Engineer

3. Landscape architect

4. Surveyor

5. Urban planner

6. Other (Please specify)

DM5. Years of industry experience:

_________________ Year(s)

DM6. The size of your company in Hong Kong:

About ___________________ employees

This is the end of the survey. Thank you for your time to complete the survey.


CUHK HKSAR

131



Discussion Guide for Focus group discussion – General Public



Focus Group Discussion on the

“Attitude and Knowledge of the General Public Towards Biodiversity

in Hong Kong”

Discussion Guide

1. Knowledge towards biodiversity

To participants who have already heard of biodiversity before participating

in this research:

Where did you learn about biodiversity?

The host would briefly introduce the three aspects of biodiversity:

1. Variation of genes; 2. Variation of species; 3. Variation of habitats

Without this introduction, is there any concept you have not

heard of before?

2. Attitude towards biodiversity

I. Personal importance of preserving biodiversity

How concerned are you about biodiversity? Why?

If there is a loss of biodiversity, will it affect your daily life? In what

aspects will your daily life be affected?

II. Willingness to preserve biodiversity

Are you aware of the potential impacts of your daily life habits to

biodiversity? And have you actively changed your habits in order to

preserve biodiversity?

III. Social importance of preserving biodiversity

Overall speaking, do you think the society is concerned about biodiversity?

How do you think about the relationship between economic development

and biodiversity conservation?

Do you think citizens, the business sector and the government have

responsibilities to preserve biodiversity?


CUHK HKSAR

132



3. Other opinions

Do you think the government has done an adequate job to promote

biodiversity?

Recommendations on how the government can promote biodiversity more

efficiently.

-THE END-


CUHK HKSAR

133



Discussion Guide for Focus group discussion – Secondary School

Teachers




“Attitude and Knowledge of the Education Sector Towards

Biodiversity in Hong Kong”

Discussion Guide

1. Overall opinion on biodiversity education in secondary schools

To your knowledge, do secondary schools value teaching students about

biodiversity?

What are the reasons for that?

Do you think there are enough secondary school teachers who are informed

about biodiversity?

If no, can you think of any ways that can increase the number of teachers

who are informed about biodiversity?

2. Opinions on biodiversity-related curriculum and activities

Where do you acquire the teaching materials about biodiversity?

Do you think the current curriculum and teaching materials about biodiversity

are able to effectively enhance the students’ consciousness of environmental

conservation? Why are the reasons for that? Do you have any suggestions?

To your knowledge, do secondary schools organize activities related to

biodiversity?

What is the nature of these activities?

How frequent does your school hold these activities?

Are they effective?

Are there any suggestions?

Have you encountered any difficulties when teaching biodiversity or organizing


CUHK HKSAR

134



activities related to biodiversity?

3. Opinions on government’s support

Do you think the government has offered adequate support to schools and

teachers to teach biodiversity, such as providing teaching materials, and offering

training and other assistance?

Are there any suggestions?

-THE END-


CUHK HKSAR

135



Discussion Guide for Focus group discussion – Planning and

Development Professionals




“Attitude and Knowledge of the Planning and Development Sector

Towards Biodiversity in Hong Kong”

Discussion Guide

1. Overall opinion on the professional sector’s attitude and knowledge towards

biodiversity

Does your professional sector have the consciousness that development projects

may affect biodiversity?

Does your professional sector value biodiversity conservation? Does it

incorporate biodiversity considerations into planning and decision-making

processes?

What are the reasons for that?

If “no”, why?

If “yes”, what are the concrete actions or initiatives? Are they effective?

2. The factors affecting the professional sector’s implementation of biodiversity

conservation measures

Are there any incentives for your professional sector to preserve biodiversity?

What kinds of incentives?

How strong are the incentives?

Is there any pressure for your professional sector to preserve biodiversity? What

kind of pressure?

How strong is the pressure?

Do you have any suggestions on how to encourage your professional sector to

implement more biodiversity conservation measures in its works?


CUHK HKSAR

136



3. Opinions on government’s effort

Do you think the government has done an adequate job to promote and educate

your professional sector on biodiversity conservation?

Are there any suggestions for better promotion and education?

How can the government support your professional sector to better implement

biodiversity conservation measures in its works?

-THE END-


CUHK HKSAR

137



Appendix 2

Demographics of Survey Respondents and

Focus Group Participants10

10 Percentages do not always add up to 100.0% due to rounding.


CUHK HKSAR

138



Demographics of Respondents – Telephone Survey

Table 1 Sex


Male 486 47.8

Female 530 52.2

Total 1 016 100.0

Table 2 Age


15-19 68 6.7

20-24 106 10.4

25-29 74 7.3

30-34 78 7.7

35-39 119 11.7

40-44 100 9.8

45-49 112 11.1

50-54 138 13.6

55-59 111 10.9

60-64 99 9.7

Refuse to answer 10 1.0

Total 1 016 100.0

Table 3 Educational Level


No formal schooling / Kindergarten 8 0.8

Primary 79 7.8

Secondary (F.1 – F.3) 172 17.0

Secondary (F.4 – F.5) 265 26.0

Matriculation (F.6 – F.7) 106 10.4

Tertiary (non-degree) 73 7.2

Tertiary (degree) 238 23.4

Postgraduate (Such as Master or

PhD degree)

71 7.0


Total 1016 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

139



Table 4 Occupation


Managers and administrators 102 10.0

Professionals 59 5.9

Associate professionals 107 10.5

Clerks 136 13.4

Service workers and shop sales workers 62 6.1

Blue-collar workers 139 13.7

Students 120 11.8

Housewives/ Home-makers 158 15.6

Retired 70 6.9

Unemployed 38 3.7


Total 1016 100.0

Table 5 Living District


Hong Kong Island 161 15.9

Kowloon East 212 20.9

Kowloon West 112 11.0

New Territories East 273 26.8

New Territories West 249 24.5


Total 1 016 100.0

Table 6 Monthly Personal Income


$9,999 or below 65 6.4

$10,000 - $19,999 143 14.1

$20,000 - $29,999 183 18.0

$30,000 - $39,999 160 15.8

$40,000 - $49,999 89 8.7

$50,000 - $59,999 91 9.0

$60,000 - $69,999 85 8.4

$100,000 or above 78 7.7


Total 1016 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

140



Demographics of Respondents – Online Survey (Teachers)

Table 1 Sex


Male 162 39.1

Female 251 60.6


Total 414 100.0

Table 2 Age


20-24 7 1.7

25-29 44 10.6

30-34 53 12.8

35-39 59 14.3

40-44 93 22.5

45-49 72 17.4

50-54 56 13.5

55-59 26 6.3

60 or above 1 0.2


Total 414 100.0





Postgraduate (Such as Master or PhD degree) 218 52.7


Total 414 100.0

Table 4 Current Teaching School


Primary 162 39.1

Secondary 252 60.9

Total 414 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

141



Table 5 Type of Current Teaching School


Government school 55 13.3

Aided school 323 78.0

Private school 6 1.4

School under direct subsidy scheme 24 5.8

Caput school 6 1.4

Total 414 100.0

Table 6 Current Teaching Subjects


Chinese 76 18.4

English 77 18.6

Mathematics 103 24.9

Liberal studies/ General studies 117 28.3

Geography 32 7.7

Biology 41 9.9

Chemistry/ Physics 26 6.3

Science 35 8.5

Accountancy/ Economics 5 1.2

Chinese history/ History 7 1.7

Music/ Visual arts/ Physical education 56 13.5

Other 23 5.6

Note: The summation of figures may exceed the total as respondents can choose

more than one answer.

Table 7 Years of Teaching Experience


5 years or below 44 10.6

6-10 years 68 16.4

11-15 years 53 12.8

16-20 years 97 23.4

21-25 years 75 18.1

26-30 years 41 9.9

30 years or above 16 3.9


Total 414 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

142



Demographics of Respondents – Online Survey (Planning and

Development Professionals)

Table 1 Sex


Male 156 73.6

Female 56 26.4

Total 212 100.0

Table 2 Age


20-24 9 4.2

25-29 30 14.2

30-34 49 23.1

35-39 21 9.9

40-44 16 7.5

45-49 22 10.4

50-54 24 11.3

55-59 18 8.5

60 or above 23 10.8

Total 212 100.0



Secondary 1 0.5



Postgraduate (Such as Master or

PhD degree)

87 41.0

Total 212 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

143



Table 4 Occupation


Architect 22 10.4

Engineer 35 16.5

Landscape architect 17 8.0

Surveyor 123 58.0

Urban planner 10 4.7

Urban designer 2 0.9

Other (Arborist, Project Planning Officer, Consultant) 3 1.4

Total 212 100.0

Table 5 Years of Industry Experience


5 years or below 32 15.1

6-10 years 48 22.6

11-15 years 19 9.0

16-20 years 28 13.2

21-25 years 19 9.0

26-30 years 25 11.8

30 years or above 27 12.7


Total 212 100.0

Table 6 The Size of Company in Hong Kong


100 employees or below 68 32.1

101 – 300 employees 28 13.2

301 – 500 employees 19 9.0

501 – 1,000 employees 19 9.0

1,001 employees or above 45 21.2


Total 212 100.0


CUHK HKSAR

144



Demographics of Participants – Focus Group Discussion (General

Public)

Table 1 Sex

Number of participants

Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Male 5 3 5

Female 4 4 3

Total 9 7 8

Table 2 Age



20-34 2 2 3

35-49 4 3 2

50-64 3 2 2

Refuse to answer - - 1

Total 9 7 8




F.3 or below - 1 -

F.4-F7 3 1 2

Tertiary 6 5 6

Total 9 7 8


CUHK HKSAR

145



Demographics of Participants – Focus Group Discussion (Secondary

teachers)

Table 1 Sex


Male 4

Female 4

Total 8

Table 2 Age


20-34 2

35-49 4

50-59 2

Total 8

Table 3 Type of Current Teaching School


Government school 3

Aided school 3

School under direct subsidy scheme 2

Total 8

Table 4 Current Teaching Subjects


Liberal studies/ General studies 1

Geography 2

Biology/ Science 5

Total 8

Table 5 Years of Teaching Experience


10 year or below 4

11-20 years 1

21 years or above 3

Total 8


CUHK HKSAR

146



Demographics of Participants – Focus Group Discussion (Planning

and Development Professionals)

Table 1 Sex


Male 4

Female 4

Total 8

Table 2 Age


20-34 3

35-49 3

50-59 2

Total 8

Table 3 Occupation


Architect 1

Engineer 2

Landscape architect 1

Surveyor 2

Urban planner 2

Total 8

Table 4 Years of Industry Experience


10 year or below 3

11-20 years 3

21 years or above 2

Total 8

Table 5 The Size of Company in Hong Kong


300 employees or below 3

301 – 1,000 employees 2

1,001 employees or above 3

Total 8


CUHK HKSAR

147



Appendix 3

Statistical Tables


CUHK HKSAR

148



Statistical Tables – Telephone Survey

Table 3.1 Have you ever heard of the term “biodiversity”?

(Percentage)

Have heard of it, and know what it means

Have heard of it, but don’t know what it

means Have not

heard of it Total

Total 23.7 23.4 53.0 100.0 * Sex Males 28.0 21.1 51.0 100.0 Females 19.7 25.5 54.8 100.0

* Age 15-29 44.8 31.2 24.0 100.0 30-39 21.0 20.8 58.2 100.0 40-49 18.0 20.8 61.2 100.0 50-64 13.3 21.1 65.6 100.0

* Educational level F.3 or below 5.8 18.5 75.7 100.0 F.4-F.7 16.0 24.5 59.5 100.0 Tertiary or above 43.5 25.8 30.6 100.0

* Occupation Managers and administers/

Professionals/ Associate professionals

34.8 22.7 42.5 100.0

Clerks/ Service workers and shop sales workers/ Blue-collar workers

14.2 23.5 62.3 100.0

Students 49.6 30.8 19.6 100.0 Housewives/ Home-makers/

Retired/ Unemployed 11.6 20.8 37.6 100.0

Living district Hong Kong Island 26.1 22.6 51.4 100.0 Kowloon East 17.2 29.4 53.3 100.0 Kowloon West 17.1 24.6 58.3 100.0 New Territories East 24.2 21.3 54.6 100.0 New Territories West 29.1 21.3 49.6 100.0

* Monthly household income $19,999 or below 13.5 24.1 62.3 100.0 $20,000－$39,999 20.7 24.1 55.2 100.0 $40,000－$59,999 29.1 24.2 46.7 100.0 $60,000 or above 34.2 23.7 42.1 100.0

Notes： 1. * Chi-Square test indicates a significant relationship exists at 95% confidence level between the response to the question and the demographic attributes.

2. Figures on demographic attributes, those who answered “Don’t know/ Refuse to answer” are excluded.


CUHK HKSAR

149



Table 3.2 How informed do you feel about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?

(Percentage)

Not informed So-so Well-informed

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total

Total 53.7 42.0 4.3 0.1 100.0 * Sex Males 48.4 46.7 4.9 0.0 100.0 Females 58.5 37.6 3.8 0.1 100.0

* Age 15-29 39.4 54.1 6.5 0.0 100.0 30-39 54.3 40.5 5.1 0.0 100.0 40-49 63.1 33.8 3.1 0.0 100.0 50-64 57.7 39.0 3.2 0.2 100.0

Educational level F.3 or below 55.3 40.7 4.0 0.0 100.0 F.4-F.7 58.4 38.3 3.3 0.0 100.0 Tertiary or above 48.2 46.0 5.7 0.1 100.0



52.6 42.6 4.8 0.0 100.0


51.9 43.7 4.2 0.2 100.0

Students 31.7 61.3 7.1 0.0 100.0 Housewives/ Home-makers/

Retired/ Unemployed 68.9 28.0 3.1 0.0 100.0

Living district Hong Kong Island 51.0 43.8 5.2 0.0 100.0 Kowloon East 57.3 38.3 4.4 0.0 100.0 Kowloon West 57.9 40.5 1.2 0.5 100.0 New Territories East 55.9 40.7 3.4 0.0 100.0 New Territories West 48.7 44.9 6.3 0.0 100.0

Monthly household income $19,999 or below 55.1 38.3 6.3 0.3 100.0 $20,000－$39,999 57.4 39.1 3.5 0.0 100.0 $40,000－$59,999 51.0 46.3 2.6 0.0 100.0 $60,000 or above 53.0 42.0 4.9 0.0 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

150



Table 3.3 Can you name ONE designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong Kong? Please tell me the

one that you are most certain about.

(Percentage)

Answered Correctly Answered Wrongly/

Don't know Total

Total 63.1 36.9 100.0 Sex Males 65.6 34.4 100.0 Females 60.8 39.2 100.0

* Age 15-29 68.9 31.1 100.0 30-39 69.1 30.9 100.0 40-49 69.9 30.1 100.0 50-64 51.1 48.9 100.0

* Educational level F.3 or below 40.2 59.8 100.0 F.4-F.7 65.3 34.7 100.0 Tertiary or above 76.7 23.3 100.0



76.2 23.8 100.0


61.5 38.5 100.0

Students 64.9 35.1 100.0 Housewives/ Home-makers/

Retired/ Unemployed 49.5 50.5 100.0

Living district Hong Kong Island 70.6 29.4 100.0 Kowloon East 58.1 41.9 100.0 Kowloon West 60.5 39.5 100.0 New Territories East 60.1 39.9 100.0 New Territories West 66.6 33.4 100.0

* Monthly household income $19,999 or below 48.9 51.1 100.0 $20,000－$39,999 61.3 38.7 100.0 $40,000－$59,999 71.4 28.6 100.0 $60,000 or above 80.3 19.7 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

151



Table 3.4 Do you know how much of Hong Kong’s land area is designated as country parks and special areas?

(Percentage)

About 40 (correct answer) Wrong answers

Don't know Total

Total 15.4 36.3 48.3 100.0 Sex Males 17.8 35.2 47.0 100.0 Females 13.3 37.3 49.5 100.0

* Age 15-29 20.7 32.3 47.0 100.0 30-39 17.3 42.6 40.1 100.0 40-49 15.4 31.8 52.8 100.0 50-64 10.8 38.0 51.2 100.0

* Educational level F.3 or below 9.2 34.2 56.7 100.0 F.4-F.7 12.7 35.1 52.2 100.0 Tertiary or above 22.6 38.8 38.7 100.0



16.4 42.1 41.4 100.0


13.4 32.4 54.2 100.0

Students 28.0 34.9 37.1 100.0 Housewives/ Home-makers/


* Living district Hong Kong Island 18.0 35.0 47.0 100.0 Kowloon East 11.9 32.9 55.2 100.0 Kowloon West 10.4 46.6 43.0 100.0 New Territories East 13.7 33.4 52.9 100.0 New Territories West 20.0 38.6 41.4 100.0

* Monthly household income $19,999 or below 8.0 34.5 57.5 100.0 $20,000－$39,999 15.0 35.2 49.8 100.0 $40,000－$59,999 14.8 39.1 46.2 100.0 $60,000 or above 20.1 42.8 37.1 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

152



Table 3.5 Can you name ONE local wild animal or plant that is legally protected in Hong Kong? Please tell me the

one that you are most certain about.

(Percentage)

Answered Correctly Answered Wrongly/

Don't know Total

Total 49.8 50.2 100.0 * Sex Males 55.4 44.6 100.0 Females 44.7 55.3 100.0

* Age 15-29 58.2 41.8 100.0 30-39 57.4 42.6 100.0 40-49 48.6 51.4 100.0 50-64 40.7 59.3 100.0




61.1 38.9 100.0


45.3 54.7 100.0


Retired/ Unemployed 40.2 59.8 100.0

* Living district Hong Kong Island 50.7 49.3 100.0 Kowloon East 48.4 51.6 100.0 Kowloon West 44.0 56.0 100.0 New Territories East 45.0 55.0 100.0 New Territories West 58.5 41.5 100.0

* Monthly household income $19,999 or below 39.7 60.3 100.0 $20,000－$39,999 52.1 47.9 100.0 $40,000－$59,999 52.7 47.3 100.0 $60,000 or above 57.1 42.9 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

153



Table 3.6 Overall knowledge of the three specific aspects of biodiversity in Hong Kong

(Percentage)


question correctly

Answered 1 Question Correctly

Answered 2 Questions

Correctly

Answered 3 Questions

Correctly Total


* Age 15-29 16.4 31.9 39.2 12.5 100.0 30-39 12.4 39.6 39.8 8.2 100.0 40-49 15.7 39.9 39.3 5.2 100.0 50-64 32.6 36.6 26.4 4.4 100.0

* Educational level F.3 or below 39.1 32.1 28.7 0.0 100.0 F.4-F.7 18.3 42.6 33.7 5.4 100.0 Tertiary or above 11.3 33.9 40.7 14.1 100.0



9.2 36.5 45.8 8.5 100.0


23.5 37.9 33.3 5.3 100.0



* Living district Hong Kong Island 17.0 34.6 40.8 7.7 100.0 Kowloon East 24.7 36.9 33.8 4.6 100.0 Kowloon West 23.5 42.8 29.1 4.7 100.0 New Territories East 26.4 34.4 33.3 6.0 100.0 New Territories West 14.3 37.6 36.8 11.3 100.0

* Monthly household income $19,999 or below 31.7 42.1 24.2 2.0 100.0 $20,000－$39,999 20.9 37.6 33.8 7.7 100.0 $40,000－$59,999 16.4 35.3 41.3 7.0 100.0 $60,000 or above 11.4 32.5 43.4 12.7 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

154



Table 3.7 How concerned are you about the biodiversity in Hong Kong?

(Percentage)

Not concerned So-so

Concerned

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total

Total 33.7 50.9 14.8 0.6 100.0 Sex Males 31.8 51.4 16.2 0.7 100.0 Females 35.4 50.5 13.5 0.6 100.0

Age 15-29 34.6 52.1 13.3 0.0 100.0 30-39 39.0 44.7 15.8 0.5 100.0 40-49 33.0 50.9 16.1 0.0 100.0 50-64 29.9 54.3 14.3 1.6 100.0


Occupation Managers and administers/


27.1 54.8 17.8 0.4 100.0


34.3 51.4 13.4 0.9 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

155



Table 3.8 “Economic development is more important than preserving biodiversity.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 66.8 22.1 11.1 0.0 100.0 30-39 57.1 27.0 13.1 2.8 100.0 40-49 45.6 42.0 10.9 1.5 100.0 50-64 36.3 40.9 20.8 2.1 100.0




60.2 28.1 11.7 0.0 100.0


43.7 39.4 15.8 1.2 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

156



Table 3.9 “It is very important to promote and educate the public on biodiversity.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 0.5 14.4 85.1 0.0 100.0 30-39 3.6 21.0 73.6 1.9 100.0 40-49 3.1 29.2 67.7 0.0 100.0 50-64 2.9 32.5 63.5 1.0 100.0




1.9 20.4 77.7 0.0 100.0


4.0 28.5 67.2 0.3 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

157



Table 3.10 “When undertaking infrastructure and land development projects, we must take into account biodiversity

conservation.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 2.9 11.9 85.2 0.0 100.0 30-39 4.0 17.3 76.7 1.9 100.0 40-49 5.9 25.2 68.9 0.0 100.0 50-64 8.8 30.8 58.1 2.4 100.0




5.7 20.3 73.9 0.0 100.0


5.4 23.5 69.4 1.7 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

158



Table 3.11 “Preserving the biodiversity in Hong Kong is a huge responsibility of the government.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 0.8 11.1 87.8 0.2 100.0 30-39 2.9 13.9 83.3 0.0 100.0 40-49 3.9 18.3 76.5 1.2 100.0 50-64 3.4 22.4 73.4 0.8 100.0




2.8 13.8 83.3 0.2 100.0


2.9 17.9 78.9 0.3 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

159



Table 3.12 “The business sector has a responsibility to preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


Age 15-29 3.2 23.8 72.2 0.8 100.0 30-39 4.8 19.8 75.4 0.0 100.0 40-49 3.0 24.3 72.3 0.3 100.0 50-64 4.6 29.1 66.0 0.3 100.0




4.8 23.1 71.9 0.2 100.0


3.3 23.1 73.3 0.3 100.0



Living district

Hong Kong Island 4.3 26.1 68.5 1.2 100.0 Kowloon East 2.3 23.8 73.9 0.0 100.0 Kowloon West 3.5 21.9 74.6 0.0 100.0 New Territories East 3.1 25.4 71.2 0.2 100.0 New Territories West 6.0 27.5 66.1 0.4 100.0





CUHK HKSAR

160



Table 3.13 “Citizens have a responsibility to change their daily habits so as to preserve the biodiversity in Hong Kong.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 0.7 15.0 84.3 0.0 100.0 30-39 4.9 11.0 84.1 0.0 100.0 40-49 1.3 15.7 81.7 1.4 100.0 50-64 4.0 24.9 70.2 1.0 100.0




2.6 14.0 83.2 0.2 100.0


2.3 19.7 76.3 1.7 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

161



Table 3.14 “The loss of biodiversity will lead to a decrease in food and product choices for citizens.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


Age 15-29 16.7 38.3 44.6 0.4 100.0 30-39 14.1 30.9 53.1 1.9 100.0 40-49 20.7 30.0 47.6 1.7 100.0 50-64 19.2 31.9 47.2 1.7 100.0




20.0 28.9 50.6 0.5 100.0


15.3 37.8 46.0 0.8 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

162



Table 3.15 “The loss of biodiversity will affect citizens’ health.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 14.0 43.9 42.1 0.0 100.0 30-39 15.3 35.1 49.6 0.0 100.0 40-49 18.0 27.1 53.2 1.7 100.0 50-64 17.3 32.1 49.2 1.5 100.0




14.9 31.9 52.6 0.6 100.0


16.7 35.6 47.6 0.2 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

163



Table 3.16 “The loss of biodiversity will affect citizens’ living environment.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 9.8 31.0 59.2 0.0 100.0 30-39 13.4 29.3 57.3 0.0 100.0 40-49 14.9 21.2 62.1 1.7 100.0 50-64 15.6 33.0 51.1 0.4 100.0




15.8 25.6 58.4 0.2 100.0


13.9 31.1 54.3 0.8 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

164



Table 3.17 “Preserving biodiversity can enrich the leisure life of citizens.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 1.5 34.6 63.5 0.4 100.0 30-39 3.4 30.0 66.6 0.0 100.0 40-49 7.7 25.2 66.0 1.1 100.0 50-64 5.8 30.1 63.6 0.5 100.0




4.0 20.8 74.7 0.5 100.0


4.8 33.9 60.9 0.3 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

165



Table 3.18 “Preserving biodiversity can bring economic gains to Hong Kong.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 8.4 46.4 44.7 0.5 100.0 30-39 7.3 45.6 47.1 0.0 100.0 40-49 12.6 45.2 39.5 2.8 100.0 50-64 17.9 44.3 35.3 2.5 100.0




15.8 35.1 47.7 1.4 100.0


9.5 52.0 37.5 1.0 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

166



Table 3.19 “We must preserve biodiversity for the future generations.”

(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 0.0 10.2 89.8 0.0 100.0 30-39 3.0 11.7 84.8 0.5 100.0 40-49 2.1 16.4 79.3 2.2 100.0 50-64 4.1 21.9 73.2 0.8 100.0




2.7 11.9 84.2 1.1 100.0


2.0 14.8 82.0 1.1 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

167



Table 3.20 Will you boycott products and services that would harm biodiversity?

(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


Age 15-29 19.5 38.8 41.6 0.0 100.0 30-39 16.0 42.2 41.8 0.0 100.0 40-49 22.7 34.2 41.7 1.4 100.0 50-64 22.7 40.0 37.2 0.2 100.0




17.1 32.8 49.6 0.5 100.0


21.2 40.1 38.4 0.4 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

168



Table 3.21 Will you donate money to associations dedicated to conserving biodiversity?

(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


Age 15-29 19.4 50.3 30.3 0.0 100.0 30-39 18.6 53.4 28.0 0.0 100.0 40-49 16.7 52.9 29.0 1.4 100.0 50-64 21.6 51.4 24.7 2.3 100.0




15.6 50.4 33.8 0.2 100.0


18.5 52.2 27.3 2.0 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

169



Table 3.22 Will you participate in environmental activities related to biodiversity conservation?

(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 25.9 52.5 21.5 0.0 100.0 30-39 19.9 50.8 29.2 0.0 100.0 40-49 29.9 49.4 20.4 0.3 100.0 50-64 38.8 43.6 16.7 0.9 100.0




28.2 46.1 25.4 0.2 100.0


26.6 53.4 19.8 0.2 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

170



Table 3.23 Will you encourage your families or friends to preserve biodiversity?

(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


Age 15-29 12.1 30.9 57.0 0.0 100.0 30-39 12.0 30.9 57.1 0.0 100.0 40-49 11.9 29.5 58.4 0.3 100.0 50-64 14.3 36.6 48.5 0.5 100.0




13.6 24.1 61.8 0.4 100.0


11.4 36.5 51.9 0.2 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

171



Table 3.24 Will you sign petitions to support biodiversity conservation?

(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 8.4 27.1 64.4 0.0 100.0 30-39 11.6 30.8 57.5 0.0 100.0 40-49 16.3 28.3 55.1 0.3 100.0 50-64 18.1 30.3 50.6 1.0 100.0




12.8 22.6 64.3 0.2 100.0


14.8 29.6 55.2 0.4 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

172



Table 3.25 Will you pay attention to information related to biodiversity?

(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

No answer/ Refuse

to answer Total


* Age 15-29 11.9 48.6 39.5 0.0 100.0 30-39 12.0 53.9 34.1 0.0 100.0 40-49 14.3 43.4 41.9 0.3 100.0 50-64 18.5 40.2 39.9 1.3 100.0




13.9 40.3 45.5 0.3 100.0


14.1 49.5 36.3 0.0 100.0



100.0






CUHK HKSAR

173



Table 3.26 “Knowledge Index”

(Percentage)

Knowledgeable Not Knowledgeable Total

Total 2.4 97.6 100.0 Sex Males 1.9 98.1 100.0 Females 2.8 97.2 100.0

Age 15-29 4.3 95.7 100.0 30-39 2.5 97.5 100.0 40-49 0.6 99.4 100.0 50-64 2.1 97.9 100.0




3.1 96.9 100.0


1.1

98.9

100.0


Retired/ Unemployed 1.3 98.7

100.0

Living district Hong Kong Island 3.2 96.8 100.0 Kowloon East 1.4 98.6 100.0 Kowloon West 1.2 98.8 100.0 New Territories East 2.0 98.0 100.0 New Territories West 3.7 96.3 100.0

Monthly household income $19,999 or below 1.2 98.8 100.0 $20,000－$39,999 2.4 97.6 100.0 $40,000－$59,999 1.2 98.8 100.0 $60,000 or above 4.8 95.2 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

174



Table 3.27 “Importance Index”

Mean Sample Size

Total 3.84 980 Sex Males 3.80 468 Females 3.87 512

* Age 15-29 3.95 246 30-39 3.93 191 40-49 3.84 204 50-64 3.70 329

* Educational level F.3 or below 3.68 239 F.4-F.7 3.80 357 Tertiary or above 3.97 380

* Occupation Managers and administers/ Professionals/ Associate professionals 3.94 266


3.79 323

Students 3.93 119 Housewives/ Home-makers/

Retired/ Unemployed 3.74 247

Living district Hong Kong Island 3.89 157 Kowloon East 3.82 202 Kowloon West 3.86 109 New Territories East 3.88 259 New Territories West 3.76 243

* Monthly household income $19,999 or below 3.79 188 $20,000－$39,999 3.79 333 $40,000－$59,999 3.93 177 $60,000 or above 3.93 162

Notes： 1. * T-test / ANOVA test indicates a significant relationship exists at 95% confidence level between the response to the question and the demographic attributes.



CUHK HKSAR

175



Table 3.28 “Closeness Index”

Mean Sample Size

Total 3.70 979 * Sex Males 3.63 469 Females 3.77 510

* Age 15-29 3.72 246 30-39 3.79 193 40-49 3.73 202 50-64 3.62 330


Occupation Managers and administers/ Professionals/ Associate professionals 3.76 261


3.69 330




Monthly household income $19,999 or below 3.65 195 $20,000－$39,999 3.70 330 $40,000－$59,999 3.75 177 $60,000 or above 3.78 161




CUHK HKSAR

176



Table 3.29 “Willingness Index”

Mean Sample Size


* Age 15-29 3.33 248 30-39 3.34 198 40-49 3.28 206 50-64 3.19 332


* Occupation Managers and administers/ Professionals/ Associate professionals 3.39 266


3.25 327




* Monthly household income $19,999 or below 3.16 198 $20,000－$39,999 3.25 336 $40,000－$59,999 3.35 179 $60,000 or above 3.42 161




CUHK HKSAR

177



Statistical Tables – Online Survey (Teachers)


(Percentage)



means

Have not heard

of it Total

Total 70.8 21.3 8.0 100.0

Sex Male 75.9 16.7 7.4 100.0

Female 67.7 23.9 8.4 100.0

* Age 20-34 84.6 12.5 2.9 100.0

35-49 67.4 24.1 8.5 100.0

50 or above 62.7 25.3 12.0 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 69.3 23.4 7.3 100.0

Postgraduate 71.6 19.7 8.7 100.0

* Current Teaching School Primary 60.5 29.0 10.5 100.0

Secondary 77.4 16.3 6.3 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School Government school 72.7 16.4% 10.9 100.0

Aided school / Caput school 69.9 22.8% 7.3 100.0

Private school / School under direct subsidy scheme

76.7 13.3% 10.0 100.0

* Current Teaching Subjects Teaching related subjects 87.7 10.3 2.0 100.0 Teaching non-related subjects 54.3 31.9 13.8 100.0

* Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 82.1 15.2 2.7 100.0 11-20 years 65.3 25.3 9.3 100.0 21 years or above 68.2 22.0 9.8 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

178




(Percentage)

Not informed So-so Well-informed Total

Total 27.3 46.4 26.3 100.0

* Sex Male 22.8 42.6 34.6 100.0 Female 29.9 49.0 21.1 100.0

* Age 20-34 16.3 47.1 36.5 100.0 35-49 29.5 47.8 22.8 100.0 50 or above 34.9 43.4 21.7 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 27.6 44.3 28.1 100.0 Postgraduate 27.1 49.1 23.9 100.0

* Current Teaching School

Primary 32.1 52.5 15.4 100.0

Secondary 24.2 42.5 33.3 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School

Government school 29.1 45.5 25.5 100.0

Aided school / Caput school 27.1 48.0 24.9 100.0


26.7 30.0 43.3 100.0

* Current Teaching Subjects

Teaching related subjects 12.3 43.1 44.6 100.0

Teaching non-related subjects 41.9 49.5 8.6 100.0

* Years of Teaching Experience

10 years or below 18.8 43.8 37.5 100.0

11-20 years 29.3 50.7 20.0 100.0

21 years or above 31.1 44.7 24.2 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

179



Table 4.3 To your knowledge, please write down ONE designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong

Kong, the one that you are most certain about.

(Percentage)

Answered Correctly Answered Wrongly/Don't

know/Refuse to answer Total

Total 80.9 19.1 100.0 Sex Male 79.6 20.4 100.0 Female 81.7 18.3 100.0

Age 20-34 83.7 16.3 100.0 35-49 80.8 19.2 100.0 50 or above 78.3 21.7 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 83.9 16.1 100.0 Postgraduate 78.0 22.0 100.0

Current Teaching School Primary 79.0 21.0 100.0

Secondary 82.1 17.9 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School Government school 80.0 20.0 100.0 Aided school / Caput school 81.2 18.8 100.0 Private school / School under

direct subsidy scheme 80.0 20.0 100.0

* Current Teaching Subjects Teaching related subjects 89.2 10.8 100.0 Teaching non-related subjects 72.9 27.1 100.0

Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 83.9 16.1 100.0 11-20 years 79.3 20.7 100.0 21 years or above 81.8 18.2 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

180



Table 4.4 Do you know how much of Hong Kong’s land area is designated as country parks and special areas?

(Percentage)


Don't know Total

Total 34.5 38.2 27.3 100.0

Sex Male 37.0 38.9 24.1 100.0 Female 32.7 37.8 29.5 100.0

Age 20-34 39.4 37.5 23.1 100.0 35-49 31.3 42.4 26.3 100.0 50 or above 37.3 27.7 34.9 100.0


Current Teaching School

Primary 29.0 40.7 30.2 100.0

Secondary 38.1 36.5 25.4 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School

Government school 43.6 36.4 20.0 100.0

Aided school / Caput school 33.1 38.9 28.0 100.0


33.3 33.3 33.3 100.0

* Current Teaching Subjects

Teaching related subjects 44.6 35.3 20.1 100.0

Teaching non-related subjects 24.8 41.0 34.3 100.0

Years of Teaching Experience

10 years or below 38.4 37.5 24.1 100.0

11-20 years 31.3 40.7 28.0 100.0

21 years or above 33.3 37.9 28.8 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

181



Table 4.5 To your knowledge, please write down ONE local wild animal or plant that is legally protected in

Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about. (Percentage)

Answered Correctly

Answered Wrongly/Don't know/Refuse to answer Total


Age 20-34 74.0 26.0 100.0 35-49 64.3 35.7 100.0 50 or above 65.1 34.9 100.0


Current Teaching School Primary 66.0 34.0 100.0

Secondary 67.5 32.5 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School Government school 69.1 30.9 100.0 Aided school / Caput school 67.5 32.5 100.0 Private school / School under direct

subsidy scheme 56.7 43.3 100.0


Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 70.5 29.5 100.0 11-20 years 68.0 32.0 100.0 21 years or above 65.2 34.8 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

182




(Percentage)

Could not answer any question

Correctly



Answered 3 Question Correctly Total

Total 11.6 20.5 41.8 26.1 100.0 * Sex Male 14.8 14.2 41.4 29.6 100.0 Female 9.6 24.7 42.2 23.5 100.0

Age 20-34 6.7 18.3 46.2 28.8 100.0 35-49 11.2 23.7 42.9 22.3 100.0 50 or above 18.1 15.7 33.7 32.5 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 11.5 17.7 46.9 24.0 100.0 Postgraduate 11.9 23.4 37.2 27.5 100.0

Current Teaching School Primary 11.1 23.5 45.7 19.8 100.0

Secondary 11.9 18.7 39.3 30.2 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School Government school 16.4 10.9 36.4 36.4 100.0 Aided school / Caput school 10.6 21.3 43.8 24.3 100.0 Private school / School under

direct subsidy scheme 13.3 30.0 30.0 26.7 100.0

* Current Teaching Subjects Teaching related subjects 4.9 14.2 44.6 36.3 100.0 Teaching non-related subjects 18.1 26.7 39.0 16.2 100.0

Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 8.0 20.5 42.0 29.5 100.0 11-20 years 10.0 24.7 42.0 23.3 100.0 21 years or above 14.4 18.2 40.2 27.3 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

183




(Percentage)

Not concerned So-so

Concerned

Total

Total 12.3 50.5 37.2 100.0 Sex Male 11.1 45.1 43.8 100.0 Female 12.7 54.2 33.1 100.0

Age 20-34 9.6 47.1 43.3 100.0 35-49 14.3 52.7 33.0 100.0 50 or above 9.6 50.6 39.8 100.0


Current Teaching School Primary 14.8 54.9 30.2 100.0

Secondary 10.7 47.6 41.7 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School Government school 16.4 50.9 32.7 100.0 Aided school / Caput school 12.2 51.1 36.8 100.0 Private school / School under

direct subsidy scheme 6.7 43.3 50.0 100.0


Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 8.9 48.2 42.9 100.0 11-20 years 11.3 55.3 33.3 100.0 21 years or above 13.6 49.2 37.1 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

184




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total

Total 65.7 21.5 12.8 100.0 * Sex Male 60.5 20.4 19.1 100.0 Female 68.9 22.3 8.8 100.0

Age 20-34 73.1 18.3 8.7 100.0 35-49 65.6 20.5 13.8 100.0 50 or above 57.8 27.7 14.5 100.0



Secondary 62.7 22.2 15.1 100.0



Current Teaching Subjects Teaching related subjects 69.1 18.1 12.7 100.0 Teaching non-related subjects 62.4 24.8 12.9 100.0





CUHK HKSAR

185




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 1.9 5.8 92.3 100.0 35-49 3.6 6.7 89.7 100.0 50 or above 3.6 10.8 85.5 100.0



Secondary 3.6 8.3 88.1 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

186



Table 4.10 “When undertaking infrastructure and land development projects, we must take into account

biodiversity conservation.” (Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 2.9 2.9 94.2 100.0 35-49 2.7 7.6 89.7 100.0 50 or above 3.6 13.3 83.1 100.0



Secondary 3.2 7.5 89.3 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

187




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 1.0 5.8 93.3 100.0 35-49 2.7 4.9 92.4 100.0 50 or above 4.8 4.8 90.4 100.0



Secondary 3.2 6.7 90.1 100.0

* Type of Current Teaching School Government school 1.8 1.8 96.4 100.0 Aided school / Caput school 2.7 4.6 92.7 100.0 Private school / School under







CUHK HKSAR

188




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 3.8 4.8 91.3 100.0 35-49 4.0 6.7 89.3 100.0 50 or above 3.6 12.0 84.3 100.0



Secondary 4.0 8.3 87.7 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

189



Table 4.13 “Citizens have a responsibility to change their daily habits so as to preserve the biodiversity in

Hong Kong.” (Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 2.9 3.8 93.3 100.0 35-49 3.6 6.3 90.2 100.0 50 or above 4.8 8.4 86.7 100.0



Secondary 4.4 6.0 89.7 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

190




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 12.5 25.0 62.5 100.0 35-49 16.1 22.8 61.2 100.0 50 or above 22.9 26.5 50.6 100.0


Current Teaching School5 Primary 17.3 23.5 59.3 100.0

Secondary 16.7 24.2 59.1 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

191




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 9.6 21.2 69.2 100.0 35-49 11.6 25.9 62.5 100.0 50 or above 19.3 19.3 61.4 100.0

* Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 12.5 18.2 69.3 100.0 Postgraduate 12.8 28.4 58.7 100.0


Secondary 12.3 23.0 64.7 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

192




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 4.8 14.4 80.8 100.0 35-49 5.4 21.9 72.8 100.0 50 or above 7.2 20.5 72.3 100.0



Secondary 4.8 20.6 74.6 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

193




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 1.0 11.5 87.5 100.0 35-49 4.0 12.5 83.5 100.0 50 or above 4.8 8.4 86.7 100.0



Secondary 2.8 12.3 84.9 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

194




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 10.6 22.1 67.3 100.0 35-49 6.3 33.0 60.7 100.0 50 or above 7.2 36.1 56.6 100.0



Secondary 8.7 29.8 61.5 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

195




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 1.0 5.8 93.3 100.0 35-49 0.4 6.7 92.9 100.0 50 or above 2.4 9.6 88.0 100.0



Secondary 0.8 8.3 90.9 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

196




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 9.6 29.8 60.6 100.0 35-49 4.9 32.6 62.5 100.0 50 or above 10.8 25.3 63.9 100.0



Secondary 7.1 29.0 63.9 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

197




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 15.4 48.1 36.5 100.0 35-49 10.7 38.8 50.4 100.0 50 or above 14.5 41.0 44.6 100.0



Secondary 12.7 38.5 48.8 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

198




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 14.4 40.4 45.2 100.0 35-49 9.8 41.5 48.7 100.0 50 or above 14.5 36.1 49.4 100.0



Secondary 12.3 34.9 52.8 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

199




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 9.6 24.0 66.3 100.0 35-49 7.1 31.7 61.2 100.0 50 or above 7.2 25.3 67.5 100.0



Secondary 8.7 25.0 66.3 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

200




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 3.8 21.2 75.0 100.0 35-49 5.8 21.0 73.2 100.0 50 or above 12.0 25.3 62.7 100.0



Secondary 8.3 21.8 69.8 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

201




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 3.8 21.2 75.0 100.0 35-49 4.5 29.0 66.5 100.0 50 or above 4.8 27.7 67.5 100.0



Secondary 3.6 23.0 73.4 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

202




(Percentage)


Total 25.6 74.4 100.0

* Sex Male 33.3 66.7 100.0

Female 20.7 79.3 100.0

* Age 20-34 35.6 64.4 100.0

35-49 22.3 77.7 100.0

50 or above 20.5 79.5 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 26.6 73.4 100.0

Postgraduate 23.9 76.1 100.0

* Current Teaching School Primary 14.8 85.2 100.0

Secondary 32.5 67.5 100.0

Type of Current Teaching School Government school 25.5 74.5 100.0

Aided school / Caput school 24.0 76.0 100.0


43.3 56.7 100.0


* Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 36.6 63.4 100.0 11-20 years 20.0 80.0 100.0 21 years or above 22.7 77.3 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

203




Mean Sample Size


Age 20-34 4.10 104 35-49 4.03 224 50 or above 3.98 83

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 4.05 192 Postgraduate 4.03 218

Current Teaching School Primary 4.04 162 Secondary 4.04 252

Type of Current Teaching School Government school 4.01 55

Aided school / Caput school 4.04 329 Private school / School under

direct subsidy scheme 4.06 30

* Current Teaching Subjects Teaching related subjects 4.13 204 Teaching non-related subjects 3.95 210

Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 4.09 112 11-20 years 4.08 150 21 years or above 3.99 132




CUHK HKSAR

204




Mean Sample Size


Age 20-34 3.97 104 35-49 3.88 224 50 or above 3.82 83











CUHK HKSAR

205




Mean Sample Size


Age 20-34 3.62 104 35-49 3.65 224 50 or above 3.62 83











CUHK HKSAR

206



Table 4.30 Does your school have enough teachers who are knowledgeable about biodiversity?

(Percentage)

Not enough So-so

Enough

Total


Age 20-34 22.1 62.5 15.4 100.0 35-49 33.0 55.4 11.6 100.0 50 or above 27.7 62.7 9.6 100.0



Secondary 25.4 58.7 15.9 100.0


direct subsidy scheme 10.0

66.7 23.3 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

207



Table 4.31 How much does your school value teaching students about biodiversity conservation?

(Percentage)

Not Valued So-so

Valued

Total


Age 20-34 23.1 58.7 18.3 100.0 35-49 24.6 51.3 24.1 100.0 50 or above 19.3 59.0 21.7 100.0



Secondary 24.6 54.0 21.4 100.0




* Years of Teaching Experience 10 years or below 25.9 54.5 19.6 100.0 11-20 years 15.3 63.3 21.3 100.0 21 years or above 29.5 45.5 25.0 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

208



Table 4.32 Has your school ever organized any biodiversity-related activities?

(Percentage)

Yes No

No answer

Total


Age 20-34 48.1 51.0 1.0 100.0 35-49 43.8 55.8 0.4 100.0 50 or above 43.4 54.2 2.4 100.0



Secondary 53.2 45.6 1.2 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

209



Table 4.33 Do you think the current curriculum and teaching materials on biodiversity are able to

effectively enhance students’ awareness of conservation? (Percentage)

Not able So-so

Able

Total


Age 20-34 36.5 53.8 9.6 100.0 35-49 38.8 47.8 13.4 100.0 50 or above 37.3 48.2 14.5 100.0



Secondary 38.5 49.6 11.9 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

210



Table 4.34 Do you think the government has offered adequate support to schools or teachers to teach

biodiversity? (Percentage)

Inadequate So-so

Adequate

Total


Age 20-34 62.5 35.6 1.9 100.0 35-49 59.8 38.8 1.3 100.0 50 or above 60.2 34.9 4.8 100.0



Secondary 61.5 35.7 2.8 100.0








CUHK HKSAR

211



Statistical Tables – Online Survey (Planning and Development

Professionals)


(Percentage)



means

Have not heard

of it Total

Total 72.2 21.7 6.1 100.0

Sex Male 73.7 20.5 5.8 100.0

Female 67.9 25.0 7.1 100.0

* Age 20-34 77.3 18.2 4.5 100.0

35-49 55.9 33.9 10.2 100.0

50 or above 80.0 15.4 4.6 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 68.0 24.8 7.2 100.0

Postgraduate 78.2 17.2 4.6 100.0

* Occupation Architect 72.7 27.3 0.0 100.0

Engineer 80.0 11.4 8.6 100.0

Landscape architect/urban planner/urban designer

96.6 3.4 0.0 100.0

Surveyor 63.4 28.5 8.1 100.0

Years of Industry Experience 10 years or below 75.0 18.8 6.3 100.0

11-20 years 57.4 31.9 10.6 100.0

21 years or above 76.1 19.7 4.2 100.0

Size of Company in Hong Kong 100 employees or below 73.5 22.1 4.4 100.0 101-1000 employees 63.6 25.8 10.6 100.0 1001 employees or above 73.3 20.0 6.7 100.0


2. Figures on demographic attributes, those who answered “Other” and “Don’t know/ Refuse to answer” are excluded.


CUHK HKSAR

212




(Percentage)

Not informed So-so Well-informed Total

Total 39.2 40.6 20.3 100.0

Sex Male 38.5 40.4 21.2 100.0 Female 41.1 41.1 17.9 100.0

* Age 20-34 27.3 50.0 22.7 100.0 35-49 61.0 28.8 10.2 100.0 50 or above 35.4 38.5 26.2 100.0


* Occupation

Architect 50.0 36.4 13.6 100.0

Engineer 40.0 37.1 22.9 100.0


20.7 31.0 48.3 100.0

Surveyor 42.3 44.7 13.0 100.0

Years of Industry Experience

10 years or below 33.8 42.5 23.8 100.0

11-20 years 48.9 40.4 10.6 100.0

21 years or above 40.8 35.2 23.9 100.0

Size of Company in Hong Kong

100 employees or below 44.1 39.7 16.2 100.0

101-1000 employees 36.4 42.4 21.2 100.0

1001 employees or above 40.0 35.6 24.4 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

213



Table 5.3 To your knowledge, please write down ONE designated protected area for nature conservation in Hong

Kong, the one that you are most certain about.

(Percentage)

Answered Correctly Answered Wrongly /

Don't know Total


Age 20-34 78.4 21.6 100.0 35-49 78.0 22.0 100.0 50 or above 86.2 13.8 100.0


* Occupation Architect 77.3 22.7 100.0 Engineer 88.6 11.4 100.0 Landscape architect/urban

planner/urban designer 96.6 3.4 100.0

Surveyor 74.8 25.2 100.0

Years of Industry Experience 10 years or below 81.3 18.8 100.0 11-20 years 80.9 19.1 100.0 21 years or above 84.5 15.5 100.0

Size of Company in Hong Kong 100 employees or below 80.9 19.1 100.0 101-1000 employees 80.3 19.7 100.0 1001 employees or above 82.2 17.8 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

214



Table 5.4 Do you know how much of Hong Kong’s land area is designated as country parks and special

areas?

(Percentage)


Don't know Total

Total 41.0 41.5 17.5 100.0

Sex Male 39.7 42.9 17.3 100.0 Female 44.6 37.5 17.9 100.0

Age 20-34 45.5 34.1 20.5 100.0 35-49 32.2 47.5 20.3 100.0 50 or above 43.1 46.2 10.8 100.0


* Occupation

Architect 36.4 50.0 13.6 100.0

Engineer 34.3 51.4 14.3 100.0


79.3 13.8 6.9 100.0

Surveyor 35.0 43.1 22.0 100.0

Years of Industry Experience

10 years or below 46.3 32.5 21.3 100.0

11-20 years 31.9 51.1 17.0 100.0

21 years or above 39.4 46.5 14.1 100.0

Size of Company in Hong Kong

100 employees or below 42.6 39.7 17.6 100.0

101-1000 employees 40.9 39.4 19.7 100.0

1001 employees or above 37.8 48.9 13.3 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

215



Table 5.5 To your knowledge, please write down ONE local wild animal or plant that is legally protected in

Hong Kong, the one that you are most certain about. (Percentage)

Answered Correctly

Answered Wrongly / Don't know Total

Total 62.3 37.7 100.0 * Sex Male 57.7 42.3 100.0 Female 75.0 25.0 100.0

Age 20-34 68.2 31.8 100.0 35-49 52.5 47.5 100.0 50 or above 63.1 36.9 100.0


* Occupation Architect 50.0 50.0 100.0 Engineer 60.0 40.0 100.0 Landscape architect/urban

planner/urban designer 93.1 6.9 100.0

Surveyor 56.9 43.1 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

216




(Percentage)

Could not answer any question

Correctly



Answered 3 Question Correctly Total

Total 9.4 24.5 38.2 27.8 100.0 Sex Male 11.5 26.3 35.9 26.3 100.0 Female 3.6 19.6 44.6 32.1 100.0

Age 20-34 10.2 15.9 44.3 29.5 100.0 35-49 11.9 33.9 33.9 20.3 100.0 50 or above 6.2 27.7 33.8 32.3 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 9.6 26.4 40.8 23.2 100.0 Postgraduate 9.2 21.8 34.5 34.5 100.0

* Occupation Architect 13.6 27.3 40.9 18.2 100.0 Engineer 0.0 37.1 40.0 22.9 100.0 Landscape architect/urban

planner/urban designer 3.4 0.0 20.7 75.9 100.0

Surveyor 13.0 26.8 40.7 19.5 100.0

Years of Industry Experience 10 years or below 8.8 15.0 43.8 32.5 100.0 11-20 years 10.6 31.9 38.3 19.1 100.0 21 years or above 8.5 29.6 32.4 29.6 100.0

Size of Company in Hong Kong 100 employees or below 10.3 19.1 41.2 29.4 100.0 101-1000 employees 10.6 22.7 39.4 27.3 100.0 1001 employees or above 6.7 24.4 42.2 26.7 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

217




(Percentage)

Not concerned So-so

Concerned

Total


* Age 20-34 15.9 30.7 53.4 100.0 35-49 15.3 42.4 42.4 100.0 50 or above 3.1 23.1 73.8 100.0


* Occupation Architect 4.5 27.3 68.2 100.0 Engineer 11.4 14.3 74.3 100.0 Landscape architect/urban

planner/urban designer 0.0 17.2 82.8 100.0

Surveyor 16.3 40.7 43.1 100.0

Years of Industry Experience 10 years or below 13.8 30.0 56.3 100.0 11-20 years 14.9 36.2 48.9 100.0 21 years or above 2.8 28.2 69.0 100.0





CUHK HKSAR

218




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 68.2 20.5 11.4 100.0 35-49 76.3 13.6 10.2 100.0 50 or above 63.1 16.9 20.0 100.0


Occupation Architect 72.7 13.6 13.6 100.0 Engineer 74.3 11.4 14.3 100.0 Landscape architect/urban


Surveyor 63.4 20.3 16.3 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

219




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 0.0 9.1 90.9 100.0 35-49 3.4 5.1 91.5 100.0 50 or above 3.1 6.2 90.8 100.0




Surveyor 0.8 8.1 91.1 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

220



Table 5.10 “When undertaking infrastructure and land development projects, we must take into account

biodiversity conservation.” (Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 1.1 8.0 90.9 100.0 35-49 5.1 11.9 83.1 100.0 50 or above 7.7 6.2 86.2 100.0




Surveyor 4.1 12.2 83.7 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

221




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 1.1 6.8 92.0 100.0 35-49 8.5 3.4 88.1 100.0 50 or above 9.2 6.2 84.6 100.0




Surveyor 4.9 7.3 87.8 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

222




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 2.3 10.2 87.5 100.0 35-49 6.8 5.1 88.1 100.0 50 or above 7.7 7.7 84.6 100.0




Surveyor 4.9 10.6 84.6 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

223



Table 5.13 “Citizens have a responsibility to change their daily habits so as to preserve the biodiversity in

Hong Kong.” (Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 0.0 4.5 95.5 100.0 35-49 5.1 6.8 88.1 100.0 50 or above 4.6 3.1 92.3 100.0




Surveyor 2.4 5.7 91.9 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

224




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 23.9 27.3 48.9 100.0 35-49 22.0 32.2 45.8 100.0 50 or above 16.9 32.3 50.8 100.0




Surveyor 26.8 29.3 43.9 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

225




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 10.2 36.4 53.4 100.0 35-49 16.9 25.4 57.6 100.0 50 or above 18.5 32.3 49.2 100.0




Surveyor 18.7 33.3 48.0 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

226




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 8.0 14.8 77.3 100.0 35-49 5.1 18.6 76.3 100.0 50 or above 12.3 9.2 78.5 100.0




Surveyor 9.8 17.1 73.2 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

227




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 3.4 17.0 79.5 100.0 35-49 3.4 13.6 83.1 100.0 50 or above 1.5 3.1 95.4 100.0




Surveyor 3.3 14.6 82.1 100.0


* Size of Company in Hong Kong 100 employees or below 4.4 4.4 91.2 100.0 101-1000 employees 1.5 10.6 87.9 100.0 1001 employees or above 0.0 22.2 77.8 100.0




CUHK HKSAR

228




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 6.8 30.7 62.5 100.0 35-49 11.9 40.7 47.5 100.0 50 or above 10.8 35.4 53.8 100.0




Surveyor 11.4 41.5 47.2 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

229




(Percentage)

Disagree So-so

Agree

Total


Age 20-34 2.3 5.7 92.0 100.0 35-49 0.0 6.8 93.2 100.0 50 or above 3.1 10.8 86.2 100.0




Surveyor 2.4 8.9 88.6 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

230




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 6.8 31.8 61.4 100.0 35-49 5.1 27.1 67.8 100.0 50 or above 4.6 24.6 70.8 100.0




Surveyor 7.3 33.3 59.3 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

231




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 27.3 36.4 36.4 100.0 35-49 15.3 40.7 44.1 100.0 50 or above 12.3 33.8 53.8 100.0




Surveyor 24.4 41.5 34.1 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

232




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 22.7 29.5 47.7 100.0 35-49 16.9 35.6 47.5 100.0 50 or above 15.4 23.1 61.5 100.0




Surveyor 26.0 35.0 39.0 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

233




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 8.0 28.4 63.6 100.0 35-49 8.5 27.1 64.4 100.0 50 or above 3.1 20.0 76.9 100.0




Surveyor 8.9 30.9 60.2 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

234




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 10.2 23.9 65.9 100.0 35-49 10.2 18.6 71.2 100.0 50 or above 10.8 18.5 70.8 100.0




Surveyor 11.4 25.2 63.4 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

235




(Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


Age 20-34 8.0 22.7 69.3 100.0 35-49 6.8 25.4 67.8 100.0 50 or above 3.1 10.8 86.2 100.0




Surveyor 7.3 28.5 64.2 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

236




(Percentage)


Total 20.3 79.7 100.0

Sex Male 21.2 78.8 100.0

Female 17.9 82.1 100.0

Age 20-34 22.7 77.3 100.0

35-49 10.2 89.8 100.0

50 or above 26.2 73.8 100.0

Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 16.0 84.0 100.0

Postgraduate 26.4 73.6 100.0

* Occupation Architect 13.6 86.4 100.0

Engineer 22.9 77.1 100.0


48.3 51.7 100.0

Surveyor 13.0 87.0 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

237




Mean Sample Size

Total 4.17 212 * Sex Males 4.11 156 Females 4.34 56

Age 20-34 4.23 88 35-49 4.10 59 50 or above 4.16 65


* Occupation Architect 4.31 22

Engineer 4.30 35 Landscape architect/urban planner/urban designer 4.47 29 Surveyor 4.04 123

Years of Industry Experience 10 years or below 4.29 80 11-20 years 4.13 47 21 years or above 4.17 71

Size of Company in Hong Kong 100 employees or below 4.35 68 101-1000 employees 4.16 66 1001 employees or above 4.09 45




CUHK HKSAR

238




Mean Sample Size


Age 20-34 3.95 88 35-49 3.93 59 50 or above 3.93 65

* Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 3.85 125 Postgraduate 4.07 87




* Size of Company in Hong Kong 100 employees or below 4.10 68 101-1000 employees 3.95 66 1001 employees or above 3.76 45




CUHK HKSAR

239




Mean Sample Size


* Age 20-34 3.59 88 35-49 3.65 59 50 or above 3.94 65

* Educational level Tertiary (non-degree & degree) 3.61 125 Postgraduate 3.87 87




* Size of Company in Hong Kong 100 employees or below 3.90 68 101-1000 employees 3.61 66 1001 employees or above 3.66 45




CUHK HKSAR

240



Table 5.30 How informed do you feel your professional sector is about biodiversity?

(Percentage)

Not informed So-so

Informed

Total


* Age 20-34 54.5 35.2 10.2 100.0 35-49 61.0 30.5 8.5 100.0 50 or above 35.4 46.2 18.5 100.0




Surveyor 52.8 40.7 6.5 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

241



Table 5.31 How much does your professional sector value biodiversity conservation?

(Percentage)

Not Valued So-so

Valued

Total


* Age 20-34 56.8 34.1 9.1 100.0 35-49 47.5 37.3 15.3 100.0 50 or above 21.5 46.2 32.3 100.0




Surveyor 52.0 37.4 10.6 100.0

* Years of Industry Experience 10 years or below 53.8 36.3 10.0 100.0 11-20 years 48.9 38.3 12.8 100.0 21 years or above 26.8 40.8 32.4 100.0





CUHK HKSAR

242



Table 5.32 To your knowledge, would your professional sector incorporate considerations for biodiversity

conservation in planning and decision-making processes? (Percentage)

Will not Half& half

Will

Total


* Age 20-34 45.5 30.7 23.9 100.0 35-49 37.3 30.5 32.2 100.0 50 or above 12.3 36.9 50.8 100.0




Surveyor 41.5 35.8 22.8 100.0

* Years of Industry Experience 10 years or below 48.8 27.5 23.8 100.0 11-20 years 38.3 36.2 25.5 100.0 21 years or above 15.5 32.4 52.1 100.0





CUHK HKSAR

243



Table 5.33 Are there sufficient incentives or pressure that urge your professional sector to incorporate


(Percentage)

Inadequate So-so

Adequate

Total


Age 20-34 61.4 30.7 8.0 100.0 35-49 66.1 28.8 5.1 100.0 50 or above 58.5 21.5 20.0 100.0




Surveyor 61.8 33.3 4.9 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

244



Table 5.34 Do you think the government has done an adequate job to promote and educate your

professional sector on biodiversity conservation? (Percentage)

Inadequate So-so

Adequate

Total


Age 20-34 73.9 21.6 4.5 100.0 35-49 72.9 22.0 5.1 100.0 50 or above 64.6 24.6 10.8 100.0




Surveyor 74.0 22.0 4.1 100.0






CUHK HKSAR

245



Appendix 4

Full Focus Group Discussion Findings


CUHK HKSAR

246



General Public

I. 對生物多樣性的認識

約一半參與者表示聽過生物多樣性，他們主要從三個途徑得知：

媒體，包括新聞報導、電視或電台新聞或節目、紀錄片和社交媒體等。

學校教育，主要是中學生物科的課程內容。

參與環保或自然相關的活動，例如擔任環保組織義工、到訪濕地公園

或自然保護區等。

在聽過生物多樣性的參與者中，大部份主動表示對這個概念認識不深。

在生物多樣性的三個層面中，參與者最熟識物種多樣性，除了因為這

個概念較普遍地得到介紹外，亦因為市民較容易從生物多樣性的字面

上聯想和理解與物種的關連。

至於生態系統多樣性，部份參與者表示認識，部份表示不知道，主要

因為他們沒有聽過，同時因為他們對「生物多樣性」的認知停留在物

種上，故未能把生態環境聯繫到此概念上。

市民對遺傳多樣性最為陌生，若沒有主持人的介紹，大部份參與者事

前完全沒有聽過，他們表示此概念較少被提及和介紹。另外，雖然「遺

傳多樣性」與物種有關，但他們較少關注同一物種之間的差異。

參與者對於生物多樣性三個層面的認知程度，也能反映他們對這概念

的認識較為淺薄和片面。

II. 對生物多樣性的態度

a. 個人對生物多樣性的關心程度

大部份參與者表示關心生物多樣性，他們關心的原因如下：

珍惜自然環境


CUHK HKSAR

247



參與者有感城市發展影響生態環境，以香港為例，香港多高樓大廈，

有石屎森林之稱，自然環境或綠化帶逐漸減少，認為需要在城市發展

與生態環境之間取得平衡，並避免情況惡化。有參與者表示若因為城

市發展而犧牲生態平衡，是一種倒退的表現。

他們對生態環境的重視源自於它是市民日常生活的一部份，例如不少

參與者表示自然環境或景觀對城市生活有調劑作用，能夠令人感覺放

鬆及改善心情，亦有助舒緩城市人的壓力，影響身心健康。

影響生活質素

參與者表示生態系統環環相扣，互相影響，無論是物種或生態環境的

減少，最終也會影響到人類。較多人舉例指出生物多樣性對空氣和氣

候的影響，例如樹林減少令空氣變差，也令溫度上升，帶來極端天氣，

如颱風的增加。

此外，氣候的變化同時影響食物的生長情況，從而影響食物的供應和

質素。物種多樣性的減少也直接影響食物的選擇。

有參與者更表示生物多樣性是顯示一個地方的生活環境質素的指標。

不希望物種消失，甚至絕種

參與者有感現時不少物種在日常生活中消失，能夠接觸到它們的機會

愈來愈少，也留意到部份物種，例如中華白海豚，面臨絕種的情況，

他們不希望這種事情發生。

他們除了感到這是一種損失外，也為下一代失去認識和接觸這些物種

的機會而感到可惜。

個別參與者表示不太關心生物多樣性，原因如下：


CUHK HKSAR

248



他們表示居住於城市，平日親身接觸大自然的機會少，有感生物多樣

性與自己的生活沒有太大關連。

另外，有參與者認為關心也是徒然，因為政府主導城市規劃，普通市

民事前獲得的資訊不多，也無法參與和改變有關計劃，小至區內的伐

樹決定，大至龍尾灘和人工島工程，市民都沒有主導權。縱使知道生

態環境正受到破壞，一般市民也無力改變，繼而變得漠視。

b. 生物多樣性與個人生活的緊密性

大部份參與者認為生物多樣性流失對個人生活沒有太大即時和直接的影

響，儘管他們明白生物多樣性與生活息息相關。

參與者指出香港是發達城市，以食物選擇為例，食物亦是入口為主，

市民較難感受到生物多樣性流失引致的食物問題。

另外，有參與者表示生物多樣性流失或會影響生活質素，例如影響空

氣和食水質素、食物選擇、氣候情況等，然而，這些改變需要長時間

後才會發生，他們目前還沒有感受到實質的改變和對其生活的影響。

少部份參與者雖然對生物多樣性流失對個人生活造成的影響沒有強烈感

受，但他們認為生物多樣性流失對社會有即時和密切的影響。

有參與者指生物多樣性流失影響食物的供應，從而影響食物的價格和

質素，例如魚獲減少而令價格提升，或者改以人工養殖方式令質素下

降，這些現時已經直接影響市民的生活。

另外，現時全球持續升溫，香港高溫的日子增加，市民已經能夠感受

生物多樣性流失導致氣候的變化。此外，生物多樣性流失影響空氣質

素和城市景觀，這些也是短時間內能夠感受到的影響。

雖然參與者對生物多樣性流失對個人生活的影響有不同看法，但他們一致

認同生物多樣性流失對下一代生活環境將會造成重大影響。參與者理解到


CUHK HKSAR

249



生物多樣性流失對生活環境有著長遠的影響，認為這將會危害到下一代的

生活環境和質素，而表示關注和憂慮。

c. 保護生物多樣性的個人意願

不少參與者會留意自己的生活習慣會否破壞環境，並主動改變生活方式以

減少破壞。

他們具體的生活實踐包括：家居源頭減廢、垃圾分類及回收、自備水

樽和環保袋、減少使用飲筒，減少開冷氣、主動留意產品成份並減少

使用對環境有害的產品，例如髮膠，購買有機食物等。

他們也會主動教育親友，鼓勵他們為環境出一份力，也有參與者參加

有關環保的義工活動，活動包括除草、執垃圾等。

然而，絕大多數市民是重視環保，為了保護環境多於是直接為了保護

生物多樣性。相比起「環保，參與者保護生物多樣性的觀念較弱，有

市民表示不知道如何直接保護生物多樣性，所想到的建議僅有減少摸

蜆及停止放生行為。

參與者對保護生物多樣性較弱的意識，與他們對此概念並不熟識和了

解有關，正如上述所言，近半參與者沒有聽過生物多樣性，而聽過的

參與者的認識也不足。

個別參與者沒有主動做一些保護生物多樣性或環保的行為，例如不會自備

環保袋或做垃圾分類。

主要因為「貪方便」。

除了是個人懶惰的心態外，他們也認為香港急速的生活節奏，令人更

加傾向以便利為主。

另一方面，相比起大企業或城市發展，他們認為個人行為對「生物多

樣性」的影響和破壞有限，尤其是遺傳及物種多樣性兩方面。有參與


CUHK HKSAR

250



者明言雖然知道每個人出一分力都可構成改變的道理，但若大企業或

政府沒有行動，個人的行動只不過是杯水車薪，作用不大，也容易成

為不作改變的藉口。

香港的城市生活模式並不支持和便利市民實踐保育行為。

部份參與者指出，香港商業社會追求便利和效率，其運作模式牽涉很

多不考慮保護環境的細節，例如多數餐廳的外賣會將即棄餐具包裹在

內，超級市場貨品有多重不必要的包裝等。即將市民有心，在日常消

費中也難以經常作出保護生物多樣性的行動。

d. 不同組別參與者之比較

如在研究方法部分（2.3.1 部分）所述，本研究是設有三組針對公眾的焦

點小組。這是根據在電話調查中，受訪者回答有關保護生物多樣性的重要

性的分數，將焦點小組參與者劃分為「高」、「中」、「低」三組。

焦點小組結果發現，這三組參與者對保護生物多樣性的態度，分別不太

大。如上所述，大部分參與者都表示關心生物多樣性，並認為保護生物多

樣性對個人和社會整體而言都是重要的。但不同組別之間是有少許些微差

別：

上述提到，有一小部分參與者表示不太關心生物多樣性，和不太願意

在日常生活中著力保護生物多樣性（因貪圖生活便利）。這少數參與

者主要是來自低分組別。

相對於低分組別，中、高分組別的參與者會更關心生物多樣性。當中，

高分組別的參與者尤其會留意自己的生活習慣會否影響生物多樣

性。同時，他們會更願意主動改變生活方式以減少破壞環境（如棄用

會影響生物多樣性的產品），和主動參與環保活動（如當義工）。


CUHK HKSAR

251



III. 生物多樣性的社會重要性

整體社會對生物多樣性的態度

就市民而言：

部份參與者認為大多數香港市民普遍環保和保育意識不高，較以個人

方便和享受為主；

部份參與者認為近年市民的環保或保育意識已有所提高，現時不少人

也會自發地實踐環保，例如普遍會自備環保袋。另外，近年推出了一

些環保政策，例如膠袋稅、垃圾徵稅等，促進了社會的討論和增加了

市民對保育方面的關注。而且社交媒體的盛行令市民更容易接收有關

環境保育的資訊，近年南生圍和港珠澳大橋涉及環境保育的事件，均

引起不少關注。

有參與者認為市民對保育的重視程度或有年齡或世代分野，年長者較

認為生物多樣性與自己無關，因而視之不重要；而年青人則較多機

會、途徑接觸相關知識，所以較為重視。

可是，整體而言，參與者傾向同意香港市民的環保和保育意識並不

高，尤其在實踐方面。

就香港政府而言：

大部份參與者認為政府不重視保育，多屆政府均側重經濟和城市發

展，甚至為此犧牲生態環境，例如興建三跑而破壞中華白海豚的棲息

地、發展龍尾灘而搬遷當地物種、建議在郊野公園興建房屋等。

另有參與者指出政府在實施環保政策方面的決心不足，例如減排、禁

用柴油車輛而轉為石油氣車輛及電動車等，均沒有進展。

少部份參與者認為現時政府較以往重視多了環境保育，表示環境保育

作為全球發展趨勢，香港政府需要跟上國際步伐，而政府近年確實推

行了不少大型的環保政策，有參與者贊同政府有關的工作和成效。


CUHK HKSAR

252



經濟發展和保護生物多樣性之間的關係

大部份參與者同意城市發展的需要，尤其現時市民住屋需求大，房屋供應

不足的問題需要解決，然而，參與者對為了經濟發展是否需要犧牲保護「生

物多樣性」，以開發土地興建房屋為例，有不同的看法：

大部份參與者不傾向發展郊野公園，他們認為有其他替代方法解決土

地和房屋問題，例如可以利用棕土和空置大廈，儘管有關方法可能較

為耗時或成本較大，但他們仍然願意以此換取郊野公園不被開發，維

持完整的生態環境。

少部份參與者（主要來自低分組別）則不反對發展郊野公園，認為住

屋是人的基本需要，較環境保育重要，即使令自然環境有一定程度的

犧牲也在所難免。而個別參與者表示香港郊野公園面積大，若根據生

態價值的高低而決定是否發展，對生態環境的破壞有限。

參與者一致地希望經濟發展和保護生物多樣性兩者能夠共存。

他們認同保育生物多樣性對社會以及個人日常生活也是十分重要。

大部份參與者認為香港作為經濟發達城市，只要有決心，香港是有條

件和能力令兩者取得平衡，若萬一影響到生態環境，亦有能力可以把

傷害減到最低或事後作出最好的補救。

然而，少部份參與者對兩者共存並不樂觀，指出現時不論是政府或商

界都強調發展，加上整個香港社會的風氣、主流大眾的心態也較注重

發展和經濟效益，容易犧牲生態環境。

社會對保護生物多樣性的責任

大部分受訪市民認為，市民、商界和政府三方面都有責任保護生物多樣

性，然而，政府當中的角色最重要，因為政府對前兩者能起推動的作用：

政府與市民：


CUHK HKSAR

253



政府可以透過宣傳和教育提升市民的保育意識，以減少破壞生態環境

的行為。有參與者更指出若市民整體保育意識提高，社會風氣更重視

保育，這能令以市場為導向的商界因社會氛圍和需要的改變而變更其

運用模式，令環境破壞減少。然而，參與者認為現時政府有關方面的

工作未如理想。首先，有參與者學校教育的課程流於表面，成效不大；

其次，不少參與者表示，他們和身邊的親友都沒有聽過生物多樣性，

這顯示政府的宣傳不足。

政府可以透過立法規管破壞生態環境的行為。有參與者認為在保育方

面，香港政府可以效法新加坡，修訂法例讓市民遵守，客觀上能夠令

保育意識不高的市民，也不會做出破壞生態環境的行為。

政府與商界：

參與者認為商界以商業利益為先，是破壞生態環境的重大元兇，政府

應積極與商界磋商，有需要時甚至可以加以規管和限制，以減低他們

對環境的破壞。

政府也可以與商界加強溝通和合作，甚至提供誘因，令商界為環保出

力，例如減少用電，舉辦無飲筒日等。商界對社會有重大影響力，他

們對保育的投入和參與，能令成效大大提高，但這需要政府努力促成。

參與者就著政府對生物多樣性的推廣不足，提出以下建議：

透過學校教育令新一代及早了解生物多樣性，例如在小學已經開始學

習有關知識，自小灌輸有關概念。另外，學校課程需要有體驗式環節，

增加學生接觸大自然的機會，從而更能體會保育的重要性。

舉辦一些與環境保育相關的免費活動，例如到訪郊野公園，並以導賞

團的形式向市民親身介紹本地的生態環境，加深他們的興趣和認識。

此外，加強宣傳郊野公園，鼓勵市民多接觸大自然也有同樣的效果。


CUHK HKSAR

254



加強大眾媒體宣傳，參與者建議可以透過電視節目和社交媒體進行推

廣。另外，有參與者指出，政府已經製作了不少宣傳短片，但吸引力

欠奉，參與者在內容方面有兩點：第一，向市民說明有關香港「生物

多樣性」的概況，譬如香港具體有多少物種，有助市民了解「生物多

樣性」此抽象概念。第二，向市民說明生物多樣性與個人的關係，從

而令市民自覺有保護「生物多樣性」的責任。


CUHK HKSAR

255



Secondary School Teachers

I. 中學對教授生物多樣性的重視程度

參與者表示，現時中學課程的相關科目，有教授生物多樣性，所以學生對相

關議題有一定程度的涉獵。但普遍來說，學校談不上十分重視教授生物多樣

性。原因如下：

受課程局限

首先，參與者指出，生物多樣性議題在現有中學課程中出現定位的問題。

相關議題主要局限在地理科和生物科，其他科目如通識科或公民教育科

就未必會觸及。若果一些學校的地理科和生物科規模比較少，甚至不設

這兩科，那這議題就會石沉大海。

有參與者指出，就算在最相關的生物科，現時初中和高中生物科課程裡，

只有少部分章節觸及到生物多樣性的知識。例如，有學校教授環保議題

時，主要集中在生活上的環保實踐，如廢紙和固體廢物回收等，課程並

無特別獨立教授生物多樣性。

不過，有參與者也指出，現時每間學校都應設有環保組，集合相關科目

的老師統籌有關環保議題的課程和活動，當中或多或少會涉獵到生物多

樣性這個議題。例如，每年學校都會舉辦一些環保講座，主題亦有包括

生物多樣性。

取決於校長的態度

除了政府課程基本要求外，生物多樣性是否受學校重視，端視乎校長的

個人取態。若果校長本身是生物科或其他相關專科出身的，則會比較重

視推動這個議題。

不過，就算校長關心，以參與者觀察，對很多學校而言，生物多樣性往

往不是要急切推動的議題。


CUHK HKSAR

256



沒有足夠老師認識生物多樣性

參與者認為，現時中學並沒有足夠老師認識生物多樣性。除了專科老師，

很難要求其他科目的老師認識。一些非專科老師對生物多樣性有認識，

只是踫巧他們個人對這議題有興趣而已。

一些參與者也坦言，就算身為專科老師，也未必談得上對生物多樣性有

很深入的認識。他們指出，自己的生物知識主要來自大學教育，而知識

比較停留在理論層面。他們舉例，當自己負責帶領戶外參觀活動時，往

往要靠生態專家從旁協助講解。參與者認爲困難在於要有效地向學生教

授生物多樣性的重要性，不能只簡單介紹香港有哪些物種和這些物種有

何特別，而是要進一步向學生解釋這些物種消失對他們有何影響，這是

需要專業知識的。

另外，參與者稱，老師工作十分繁忙，很難額外花時間鑽研一些課程和

考試範圍以外的知識，局限了自己對生物多樣性的了解。

II. 對生物多樣性課程成效和教材的意見

就現有生物多樣性的課程和教材，參與者有以下意見：

對生物多樣性教材的意見

參與者主要依賴出版社和網上資訊作為教材，認為坊間現時缺乏豐富和

有系統的生物多樣性教材套。

一些參與者知道漁護署有提供相關資源，但有些卻不太清楚。例如，有

一名參與者因最近剛巧在校內要籌辦有關生態旅遊的活動，才知悉漁護

署建立了一個豐富的生物數據庫。若非主動搜尋，否則不會知道。

對生物多樣性課程成效的意見

當被問及現有課程能否提升學生的保育意識，參與者有不同意見。有些

參與者認為，課程或多或少能夠提升學生的認知和興趣。就算只是在課


CUHK HKSAR

257



程中輕輕帶過相關內容，也至少會啟發到學生。學生開了眼界後，若感

興趣，日後自己會再鑽研下去。

但亦有若干參與者就比較悲觀。他們認為，學生吸收課堂知識，主要是

為應付考試，過一段時間就會忘記內容。

III. 中學舉辦生物多樣性活動的情況和困難

上述提到，部分參與者對課程能否提升到學生的保育意識有不同見解。姑勿

論成效如何，他們都普遍認為，單靠課程和課本去教授生物多樣性，只屬紙

上談兵，難以達致最佳教學效果。

因此，他們認為將生物多樣性這個議題連繫到生活至為關鍵。這能夠讓學生

親身了解環境和生活的密切關係，建立他們對生物欣賞的情誼。有見及此，

一些參與者的學校建立了温室和有機農地，讓環保議題融入學生日常生活當

中。偶爾，他們也會舉行講座，邀請校外專業人士向學生介紹課本外的環保

生態議題。

然而，他們一致認為，最有效的方法是舉辦戶外活動，讓老師帶領學生親身

感受大自然環境和近距離觀看動植物。雖然戶外活動被認為是最有效的教學

方法，但這往往也是令老師最卻步的活動。參與者提出以下各樣舉辦戶外活

動的局限和困難：

參與校外活動，因校而異

首先，參與者指出，在香港中學文憑生物科課程下，校外體驗是非必須

的教學活動。故不是每間學校會主動參與或自行籌辦。但一些學校為了

滿足「校本評核」(school-based assessment)制度的要求，每年都有舉辦

相關活動。

參與者解釋，學校經常收到很多坊間生態導賞活動的邀請和推廣資訊。

有些老師比較熱心，就會多安排學生參與，但有些老師工作比較繁忙，


CUHK HKSAR

258



就未必願意參與太多。

缺乏足夠人手和資源

另一個阻礙老師舉辦戶外活動的原因是缺乏足夠人手。由於學校只有少

數老師熟悉生物多樣性，不能將所有外出帶團的責任推給他們，因他們

和其他老師一樣都有很多公務在身。另外，根據教育局指引，學校進行

戶外活動時，師生比例最低限度需達到 1：20，即比一般課堂或室內活

動需要更多人手。若參與戶外活動的班數眾多，學校人手便會不勝負

荷。

此外，學校籌備戶外活動，牽涉很多行政程序，例如派發家長信、租車、

人手安排、安全評估，還有活動之後的功課作業跟進。這些行政工作都

會令老師卻步。

除了人手安排，資源緊絀也構成問題。如上文所述，不是所有老師都熟

悉廣泛的生態和環境知識。故進行戶外活動時，往往要額外花錢聘請專

業導賞員協助。

坊間價錢合適的導賞團供不應求

不少參與者都有安排學生參與戶外活動的經驗。他們認為，坊間價錢合

適的生態導賞團，往往供不應求。他們就算有心安排學生參與，卻苦無

機會。箇中的問題是，一些導賞團收費過高，他們不予考慮。一來學校

資源緊絀，二來學生又未必能夠負擔。但價格相宜又或者是免費的，名

額卻很快爆滿。


CUHK HKSAR

259



IV. 對政府支援中學生物多樣性教育的意見

針對上述的教學局限和困難，參與者建議政府可從以下各方面支援中學的生

物多樣性教育：

加強有關生物多樣性的課程內容

參與者指出，現時中學的生物多樣性教育主要是依據當局課程而定。故

此，若要令學校、老師和學生各方都更加著重生物多樣性，最直接的方

法是在課程中增加相關的教學和考試元素。

訂立具體的生物多樣性教學目標

承繼上述的討論，參加者被問及現時中學生物多樣性教育對提升學生的

保育意識的效用。不少參與者表示很難回答，因為他們沒有客觀標準作

參考。故他們建議政府訂立具體、可量度的教學目標，方便學校老師制

定教學活動，以及評估學生的學習進度。

增加師資培訓和教學資源

針對上述提到缺乏足夠老師認識生物多樣性和缺乏教材的問題，參與者

建議前者可從師資培訓解決。當局可先加強培訓老師認識生物多樣性，

裝備好後才向學生傳授相關知識。

教材方面，參與者建議當局建立一個生物多樣性資源平台予老師和學生。

教材形式最好是多影片和互動性高。有參與者舉例，現時每間學校內或

附近都有栽種植物。當局可製作一個有關植物的互動資源平台。只要每

棵植物附上一個二維條碼，學生用手機或平板電腦一掃，就可以輕易連

結到相關資源平台，了解每棵植物背後的故事。

支援學校各方面的生物多樣性教學活動

參與者十分希望能夠多籌辦和參與有關生物多樣性的戶外教學活動。他


CUHK HKSAR

260



們表示，無論是老師或者學生，都很願意參加，只是學校缺乏時間、人

手和資源。若果政府連同坊間團體，能夠提供更多全面的導賞團服務和

專業支援，讓學校只需報名參加即可，這能減輕老師的工作負擔。

另外，參與者亦建議政府增加和學校的互動。有參與者提到，早年政府

推動市區重建，會有流動車駛到學校宣傳，並在學校舉行講座。政府日

後推廣生物多樣性時，可參考相關做法。

參與者提到，現時很多學校都有自行舉辦不同有關生物多樣性的活動

（例如，有的是戶外活動、有的是舉辦講座、有的是建立綠色校園），

故每間學校有不同需要。所以政府要做到以校為本，因應每間學校的不

同需要提供相應支援。

提供誘因予學校、老師和學生

最後，有參與者認為，當局可在增加誘因方面著手，吸引學校、老師和

學生多推廣、多教、多學習生物多樣性。

針對學校而言，可考慮設立認證制度，如學校在校園裡保護或教育生物

多樣性的工作達標，便會得到政府頒發獎項。參與者相信，這個獎項有

助學校建立良好形象，因而會得到校長支持，繼而推動老師參與。但參

與者也提醒，得奬門檻不要訂得過高，否則學校也不會願意花大太功夫

參與。

在吸引老師方面，當局可設立專項資助計劃，邀請老師申請以用作舉辦

教育和推廣生物多樣性的活動。

就學生而言，當局可舉行聯校比賽，例如要求學生製作展品或影片，介

紹香港生物多樣性的情況，讓學生發揮才能。勝出者可獲資助到海外參

與國際比賽或參觀考察。


CUHK HKSAR

261



Planning and Development Professionals

I. 業界對保護生物多樣性的意識和重視程度

參與者普遍認為，業界對保護生物多樣性的意識不強，重視程度亦低，原因

以下：

業界僅按法例要求行事

參與者表示，一般而言，業界進行工程主要是根據規例行事，例如會進

行各方面的環境評估，包括噪音、污染、污水等，只要符合到法例要求

便可。至於工程對生物多樣性的影響，則是相當次要的考慮，甚至沒有

將其考慮在内。尤其就一些小型工程，如在市區建立一座天橋、鋪設渠

道和水管，只會著重效率和成本控制。業界只有在進行大型基建如落馬

州建設、港珠澳大橋、機場填海工程時，因項目需要通過《環境影響評

估條例》才會較多考慮工程會否影響到生物多樣性。

另外，有參與者指出，業界考慮保護生物多樣性時，也會採取迴避態度。

例如，在開拓一些新發展區時，如新界東北發展，業界甚少考慮工程是

否會影響到生物多樣性，極其量只會考慮避開一些敏感地段（如法定圖

則上訂明的保護區和具特殊科學價值地點）。而工程的焦點主要會放在

通風、交通等基建事宜。

總結而言，業界進行工程時只務求符合最低法定要求，但甚少自行考慮

到要保護生物多樣性和實行對其保護的措施。

業界以滿足發展商要求和符合成本效益為主

參與者認為，普遍業界進行工程時最多是會考慮生物多樣性，但談不上

是會重視。但他們指出，業界內一些建築師和城市規劃師都有願景，想

多做一點事情去保護生物多樣性。但能否成事則取決於發展商的決定。

但他們認為，要求發展商會自行採取額外措施去保護生物多樣性，即是


CUHK HKSAR

262



要求他們自設工程障礙，那是不合符經濟邏輯。商家歸根究底都是追求

成本效益的。

業界對生物多樣性缺乏足夠認識

參與者認為，業界不單對保護生物多樣性的意識不強，就連對生物多樣

性本身的認識都很薄弱。一些參與者在參與研究前都知悉這個概念，但

只局限於認為它是指物種的多寡而已，並不知道原來是有三個不同層次

（遺傳多樣性、物種多樣性、生態系統多樣性）。

他們解釋，由於業界人士本身不是生物和環境專科出身，在大學讀書時

沒有涉獵有關生態和環境的知識，所以對生物多樣性的認識不足，是可

以理解的。

另外，有參與者指出，現時業界缺乏對生態方面的專家。環顧各大發展

商和工程顧問公司，都甚少聘請相關專才。長遠來說，若日後工程要兼

顧對生態的影響，業界就有必要培訓和吸納生態人才。不過，有參與者

就擔心，若設更多專家制度，勢必令工程越來越複雜。

II. 促使業界保護生物多樣性的誘因和壓力

上述提到，業界會否在規劃和發展工程時考慮保護生物多樣性，主要取決於

法例規定需要，但參與者也討論到有甚麼誘因和壓力，能夠促使業界保護生

物多樣性：

業界保護生物多樣性的誘因

上述提到，發展商甚少顧及保護生物多樣性。雖然如此，有參與者感覺

到，近年不少業界人士和發展商都逐漸著重保護環境。例如，近年不少

發展商入標建樓時，都越趨看重在「綠建環評」(Beam Plus)中的評估表

現。這是因為此評估制度提出了經濟誘因，發展商只要在建樓時符合相

關環保規定，就可申請寬免建築物總樓面面積，變相是可以擴大工程範


CUHK HKSAR

263



圍。

參與者提議，以「綠建環評」為藍本，提供誘因予發展商去保護生物多

樣性。評核機制可包括要求發展商記錄和公開工程對生物多樣性的影響

的前後對比，讓民間能監察物種變化。

除了經濟誘因，有參與者指出，隨著社會越來越著重環保，發展商或有

誘因去保護生物多樣性，因這有助於建立良好的品牌形象。有參與者就

建議，業界專業組織可設立有關保護生物多樣性的環保獎項，以表揚業

界人士和發展商。

業界保護生物多樣性的壓力

至於壓力方面，參與者表示身為前線業界人士，在日常工作中，並沒有

感受到任何壓力，促使他們要考慮保護生物多樣性。問及近年公民社會

包括環保團體和市民都越趨關注保護生態環境，並經常就相關議題發聲，

會否對業界構成社會輿論壓力。參與者表示，這些民意可能主要對政府

構成若干壓力，但對業界沒有任何影響。業界人士主要還是根據法例和

發展商要求進行規劃，以及服膺於成本效益的計算，不會因為看到有市

民提出反對意見，便貿然更改工程。

III. 對政府向業界教育及推廣生物多樣性的意見

參與者普遍認為，現時政府向業界教育及推廣生物多樣性的工作不足夠。故

他們提出以下建議：

多辦論壇，配合政策，持續推廣

參與者提議，政府應多辦業界論壇，向業界廣泛推廣生物多樣性。而這

些論壇不應局限在某段時期，而要持續進行。

但有參與者提醒，若論壇純粹是宣傳性質，則和一般公眾推廣無異，只

會吸引到本身對議題有興趣的人去聽。那參與論壇的人數未必會多，而


CUHK HKSAR

264



且參與感也未必強。

所以，舉辦業界論壇必須是有政策配合。即政府先推出有關保護生物多

樣性的政策和相關業界作業指引(practice notes)，其後透過論壇向業界

介紹和講解政策。在這個情況下，參與論壇的人數就會增加，因為業界

需要學習及在日後應用相關知識。參與者也坦言，業界人士工作十分繁

忙，若無工作需要，他們亦無須要花時間了解相關議題。

提供專業培訓

上述提到，業界人士本身缺乏認識生物多樣性。針對這個問題，有參與

者提到，政府可配合業界的專業學會，提供有關保護生物多樣性的「持

續專業發展」(Continuing professional development)課程，以提升業界人

士的相關知識。

IV. 對政府支援業界落實保護生物多樣性的意見

政府除了著力向業界教育及推廣生物多樣性，參與者也建議政府可循以下方

法加強支援業界落實保護生物多樣性：

檢討現有環境影響評估機制

由於業界會否保護生物多樣性主要受政策法規影響，參與者深入討論了

現有的環境影響評估制度。普遍意見是，現有制度未有全面顧及到生物

多樣性這個概念，需要檢討。

參與者認為現時的環境評估制度是有效的，因為當中覆蓋的範圍算廣泛，

而且是法例要求，發展商和業界必須遵守。但他們認為，評估制度卻需

要檢討，因為在上世紀九十年代制定相關條例和機制時，並不是針對「生

物多樣性」這個新概念，故未能反映工程對生物多樣性的影響。

有參與者解釋，現有環境影響評估機制只有其中一個範疇牽涉到「生態

影響」(ecological impact)，這間接跟生物多樣性相關。但是，現有條例


CUHK HKSAR

265



卻沒有直接、具體和全面觸及「生物多樣性」這個概念，由於未有法例

要求，業界進行工程時不會主動考慮保護生物多樣性。

另外，有參與者認為，現存的環境評估制度只屬一個「被動機制」。在

這機制下，業界的思路只會考慮到工程對生物多樣性有甚麼負面影響，

而需要有甚麼相應補償辦法，務求令影響減至最低。但是，業界卻不會

主動思考如何優化現有狀態（例如如何增加物種）。

此外，有參與者建議政府設立獨立機構進行環境評估。他們指出，現有

環境評估制度另一個不足的地方是，相關評估是由發展商聘請顧問撰寫

的，而不是由獨立機構或人士進行，所以提出的建議都只停留於最基礎

的層面：即若工程會影響到環境，才需要採取相應的補償措施，將影響

減到最低，但就不會進一步採取優化措施。

制定政策，規範商界和業界

上述提到，商界並無太大誘因主動落實保護生物多樣性，所以參與者都

寄望政府能夠帶頭制定政策，以規範發展商和業界。

有參與者指出，現時世界各地都致力提倡保護生物多樣性，是由於多個

政府共同簽署相關國際公約（《生物多樣性公約》）約束，這即說明保護

生物多樣性的責任主要在政府，很難靠商界、業界人士和民間自發去

做。

政府以身作則，樹立榜樣

參與者都認為，現時業界沒有足夠知識如何在規劃和進行工程時，落實

保護生物多樣性，所以他們建議政府身為香港最大的發展商，應率先透

過大型公共工程作示範。例如，在規劃工程階段，政府可牽頭和協調各

持份者包括業界、學術界和環保界促成互動交流，向社會各界展示如何

共同謀劃保護香港的生物多樣性，並讓公眾了解到工程發展和保護生態


CUHK HKSAR

266



是可以共存的。當政府樹立榜樣後，商界和業界便有先例可循。

由較高層次局方負責落實保護生物多樣性的政策

最後，參與者提出，政府若要真正有效落實保護生物多樣性的政策，必

須由一個較高層次的局方去牽頭，而不是由漁護署這個規模相對較小的

部門負責。另外，由於相關政策是針對規劃及發展工作業界，故發展局

是較合適的負責部門。

baseline survey on the attitude and level of knowledge of

Documents